LIVING STANDARDS IN NEW FRANCE ON
THE EVE OF CONQUEST
Abstract : This paper uses a novel dataset of prices and wages for New France
(modern day Quebec) during the 17 th and 18 th centuries to create a series of
measurements of living standards that can be compared with those observed in
other societies. The aim is to introduce French America into the debate about the
colonial origins of economic divergence. It shows that the French population of
North America enjoyed virtually no substantive growth in living standards from
1688 to 1760. It also shows that it was relatively easy to achieve a basic
standard of living in the colony which made the inhabitants of French North
America relatively richer than their counterparts back in France. However,
moving from bare subsistence consumption to a more respectable level of
consumption (which includes more imported and manufactured goods) was much
harder in New France than it was in France. Relative to the British colonists to
the south of New France, the inhabitants of New France were equally able to
meet basic level of living standards but it was harder for them to reach more
respectable levels of consumption in terms of imported and manufactured goods.
Moreover, there is evidence that the existing gaps between New France and the
British colonies of New England and Pennsylvania were actually widening. In
short, there are empirical signs of divergence within North America during the
colonial era. These results can be integrated within the broader literature on
divergence.
Section 1: Introduction
2
Development economists attribute great importance to the Americas in their debates
over divergence given that North America is markedly richer than Latin America. For
economic historians, the question regards whether or not there were any colonial
origins to this divergence. In both regions, institutional frameworks (legal and
cultural) were markedly different during the colonial era. However, the debate has
centered on British North America versus Latin America with little attention being
granted to the French colonies. The most important of these colonies, New France
(modern day Quebec), was not of a trivial size. The main urban center, Quebec City,
was the fourth largest in North America behind Philadelphia, Boston and New York
but ahead of Charleston, Newport, Halifax and Savannah. Its overall population at
the close of the era of French rule (1760) was close to 70,000, most of which was
concentrated along the banks of the Saint-Lawrence River. Additionally, New France
never had an extensive slave system and had a largely different institutional
framework for settlers. Yet, we know very little about living standards during that era.
The prevailing wisdom is that the colony was poor, but little has been said with
definite proof of whether it was growing poorer or richer. In fact, evidence of
“poverty” often came in qualitative form within the correspondence papers of the
royal administrators appointed by Versailles to run the colony. As with the evidence
on price data, the evidence on wage data in New France is scarce and scattered.
By comparison, scholars of American economic history are swamped with estimates
of economic growth for the United States. However, this record of economic growth
has rarely been benchmarked against the performance of other colonies in North
America because no estimate of economic growth ever existed for other societies.
Nowadays, we know that Quebec has had a poor record of economic growth within
North America from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century and always lagged
behind (and the gap likely widened throughout the period).1 But when did this
divergence truly began?
The goal of this paper is to render possible comparisons of living standards by
creating datasets about wages and output. The penultimate goal is to include
Quebec in the story about divergence by asking the question of whether or not there
was divergence within North America as well. Given the large institutional differences
between New England and New France and their great geographical similarities, any
observed divergence in living standards could be attributable to institutional
differences. If no significant differences creep up despite the large institutional
differences, other factors would have to be considered.
This paper will try to remedy these gaps in the literature in order to generate
measures of comparison with other economies. In section 2, I will overview the
literature to better outline how to tackle the issue. Afterwards, section 3 will provide a
lengthy discussion of the new source materials used to derive wages which will then
be presented. In section 4, I will try to create income figures and compare them with
existing estimates. Then, section 5 will use the data presented in part 3 of my
doctoral thesis to create a “respectable” basket of goods and a bare bones basket of
goods. This section will use price data collected from the same sources as the wage
data but which have been discussed in long details in another paper by the current
Vincent Geloso. 2013. Une perspective historique sur la productivité et le niveau de vie des Québécois – de
1870 à nos jours. Montréal : Centre for Prosperity and Productivity at HEC Montréal.
1
3
author.2 Section 6 will present the evolution of New France’s economy over time.
Section 7 will provide a long discussion that will leads to numerous comparisons of
French America’s living standards with other societies, namely France, and the
British American colonies. This section, the longest in this paper, will show that,
although the inhabitants of New France were able to meet a rudimentary standard of
living quite easily, achieving greater levels of consumption was much more difficult
than in France, Britain or the American colonies. Four conclusions will emerge from
this section of my thesis.
A) There were no long term sustained improvements in the living standards of
the average individual (defined by an unskilled worker) in New France from
1688 to 1760
B) An unskilled worker in New France was richer than an unskilled worker in
France
C) The average inhabitant of New France had a roughly equivalent standard of
living to those observed in New England and Pennsylvania
D) However, the inhabitant of New France faced a much greater difficulty in
terms of consumer goods like manufactured goods or imported goods.
4.2. Literature review
There are (broadly speaking) two views clashing regarding the economic
performance of New France. In what has been labelled the “dominant interpretation”,
the economic system of New France is considered as a dual economy with the fur
trade on the one side (the main export of the colony) and the agricultural sector on
the other side.3 These two economies evolved separately and independently of each
other.4 In refutation, the other viewpoint presents the economy of New France as
very dynamic and growing fast, especially during the decades of peace between
1713 and 1738.5 This “dissenting” view has received more empirical support,
especially from Morris Altman showing that the economy diversified in the years of
peace. None of these sides have marshalled sufficient evidence to support their
claims beyond being mere propositions. In short, we need more information to assert
the path of living standards. Moreover, we need more information in order to
compare living standards.
With regards to wages, there is a dearth of data. One of the most complete studies
of wages was that of Cameron Nish who was concerned with the period from 1740
up to 1760. However, this period was one of price instability where nominal wage
rates lose their importance. This makes Nish’s data and conclusions somewhat
See “Prices in New France : Creating a Price Index, 1688 to 1760” which is a part of this author’s
doctoral dissertation and was also presented as a conference paper at the Canadian Network in
Economic History in Peterborough, Ontario under the title “Prices and Markets in New France, 1688
to 1760”.
3 Morris Altman. 1988. “Economic Growth, Economic Structure and Real Gross Domestic Product in
Early Canada, 1695-1739” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.45, p.684.
4 Louise Dechêne.1994. Le Partage des Subsistances au Canada sous le Régime Français. Montréal:
Éditions Boréal; Louise Dechêne. 1974. Habitants et Marchands de Montréal au XVIIe siècle. Paris :
Plon; Jean Hamelin. 1960. Économie et Société en Nouvelle-France. Québec : Presses de
l’Université Laval; Richard Harris. 1966 [1984]. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. Montréal:
McGill-Queen’s University.
5 Alice Jean Lunn. 1986 (1942). Développement économique de la Nouvelle-France, 1713-1760.
Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal
2
4
unreliable.6 Other studies like those of Sylvie Dépatie and Arnaud Bessières concern
themselves wage rates for servants over grouped periods of years or with serious
annual gaps.7Akin to the problem seen in Nish’s data, an important part of the period
they studied (the late 17th and early 18th centuries) were periods of price instability in
New France. Overall, we have no continuous time series for inflation-adjusted
wages. A similar dearth is found with regards to output. In the only attempt to create
data for real income per capita, Morris Altman found that between 1695 and 1739,
the annual compounded rate of growth of real per capita income stood at 0.42%. 8 In
the years of peace from 1713 to 1739, this yields an astounding 0.84% growth rate
per annum. It is twice the rate of economic growth observed in southern New
England estimated from probate records over a similar period.9 It is on par with the
general rate of economic growth of 0.4% per annum observed by Alice Hanson
Jones.10 It is also in the range of 0.3% to 0.6% estimated by McCusker and Menard
for the period between 1700 and 1774.11 Consequently, it seems that Quebec likely
had a roughly parallel path of economic growth to that of the American colonies prior
to the War of Austrian Succession. However, Altman’s method of estimating a
constant measure of purchasing power has attracted criticisms from the historical
community. He estimated the value of output by using only prices for the year 1749 –
which was the only year for which data was readily available. Hence, all output
figures in quantities were measured in prices of 1749 (i.e. the value of a slaughtered
pig in 1720 was multiplied by the price of a pig in 1749). This led historians, like
Catherine Desbarats, to assert that “weighting all quantities by the price of a single
year is a costly short cut”. 12 As mentioned earlier, this should not be considered a
problem. Desbarats’ criticism should be a moot point given that Altman’s method is
the equivalent of calculating a volume index. The use of a single year to transform
different quantities of outputs into a single unified measure of output (hence a
volume index) is not uncommon for economic historians in order to obtain reliable
estimations of output.13 Yet, thanks to such criticisms, Altman’s estimates are rarely
quoted and the issue is still open.
In addition, the absence of detailed prices in New France, an issue remedied in the
previous section of this thesis, hindered the computation of purchasing power
6
Cameron Nish. 1968. Les bourgeois-gentilshommes de la Nouvelle-France, 1729-1748. Montréal :
Fides, Chapter 2.
7 Sylvie Dépatie. 2008. "Maîtres et domestiques dans les campagnes montréalaises au XVIIIe siècle:
bilan préliminaire." Histoire, économie & société Vol.27, No. 4, pp. 51-65; Arnaud Bessières. 2008.
"Le salaire des domestiques au Canada au XVIIe siècle" Histoire, économie & société Vol.27, no. 4,
pp. 33-50.
8 Morris Altman. 1988. “Economic Growth, Economic Structure and Real Gross Domestic Product in
Early Canada, 1695-1739” William and Mary Quartely, Vol.45, p,684-711
9 Gloria Main and Jackson Main. 1988. “Economic Growth and the Standard of Living in Southern
New England, 1640-1774” Journal of Economic History, Vol.48, no.1, p.36.
10 Alice Hanson Jones. 1980. Wealth of a Nation to Be. New York: New York University Press.
11 John J.McCusker and Russell Menard.1991.The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Note: Given that economic growth seems to have been
faster after 1750 in the United States than before, it is quite likely that Quebec’s growth rate falls in
line with that of the American colonies. It is Marc Egnal who estimates that growth was uneven from
1720 to 1774 and that it was faster after 1750; Marc Egnal. 1975. “The Economic Development of the
Thirteen Continental Colonies, 1720 to 1775” William and Mary Quartely, Vol.32, no.2 p,191-222.
12 Catherine Desbarats. 1992. “Agriculture within the Seigneurial Régime of Eighteenth Century
Canada: Some Thoughts on the Recent Literature”, Canadian Historical Review, Vol.73, no.1, p.10.
13 Nicholas Crafts, and Knick Harley. 1992. "Output growth and the British industrial revolution: a
restatement of the Crafts‐ Harley view." The Economic History Review 45, no. 4, pp. 703-730.
5
parities or of welfare ratios. Some, like Marc Egnal, believe there were no differences
in living standards between French Canada and the American colonies at the time.14
Cameron Nish supported this hypothesis by comparing New France with
Pennsylvania in the 1730s. 15 However, Denys Delâge disagreed with such a
statement and counter-argued, relying on imports and exports data, that New France
was developing very poorly compared to northern part of the American colonies –
chiefly New York.16 Comparisons with France are also hard to muster. For example,
John Dickinson argued that “salaries were higher [in New France] than those
common in France”.17 However, this claim did not account for purchasing power
which is problematic.
In short, we cannot know for certain if the French Canadians were richer than the
Americans, the British or their brethren in France whilst we are unsure about the true
path of the economy at the time.
4.3. Wage data for New France
To solve the problem of poor knowledge about wages, I collected observations of
wage rates in the account books of the Séminaire de Québec - a religious
community located in what is currently the oldest part of Quebec City. This is the
same source as in part 1 of this thesis. The accounts books are organized by
account and each account is then organized by year of transactions. One of the
important advantages of this source is that the Séminaire possessed a wide array of
installations that provide us with observations from numerous areas. The most
important being wages for farm work. The Séminaire possessed several farms and
mills in the area of Quebec City: la Canardière, la Petite Ferme Saint-Joachim, la
Grande Ferme Saint-Joachim, le Petit Pré, Saint-Michel and Baye Saint-Paul. It also
possessed a large estate north of Montreal on the Isle Jésus. Moreover, it operated
several shallow-draft ships which were used to carry goods between the different
installations that it owned – providing with wages in the transport sector. To all of
these, we must add observations of skilled workers (carpenters who built and
repaired buildings) and domestics who are frequently mentioned. The data provided
by the Séminaire is rich with information about numerous sectors of activity. Thus, it
gives us a glimpse into the labor market of the time.
When I collected the data, I recorded the observation by noting the wage rate per
unit of time, and then I took notes about the nature of the trade involved, noted the
person’s name and the page within each reference. It is important to indicate that I
noted the name in order to make sure I did not count them twice. In numerous
accounts, gages (wages and earnings) are reported for journées, mois and an (daily,
monthly, yearly). In all, I recorded 1119 wage observations. Of those, 584 are
observations about daily wages, 133 are on a monthly basis and 402 are annual
14
Marc Egnal. 1996. Divergent Paths: How Culture and Institutions have shaped North American
Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15 Cameron Nish. 1968. Les bourgeois-gentilshommes de la Nouvelle-France, 1729-1748. Montréal :
Fides.
16 Denys Delage. 1970. “Les structures économiques de la Nouvelle-France et de la Nouvelle-York”,
Actualié économique, Vol.46, No.1, pp.67-118.
17 John Dickinson. 1996. “New France: Law, Courts and Coutume de Paris, 1608-1760” Manitoba
Law Review, Vol.23, no.1 p.39.
6
observations. These observations span from 1688 to 1760. Figure 1 provides the
breakdown for each type of wage rate on an annual basis. The period from 1724 to
1730 is somewhat disappointing since the account book that was concerned with
that period was very poor with regards to wage information; hence the sample of
wages is most problematic in that sub-period.
Figure 1: Breakdown of wage observations per type of frequency in each year
50
45
40
35
30
Annual
25
Monthly
20
Daily
15
10
5
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
1742
1745
1748
1751
1754
1757
1760
0
Daily wages are the most valuable datapoints collected since they are the cleanest.
Very rarely were those wages associated with payment in kind, so we have very little
problems of underestimated wage levels. When they were, the account books added
the notice of “et nourry” (and fed) to the wage rate or mentioned a specific item that
was offered. In those instances, the Séminaire also reported the value of the
payments in kind that were offered. I only collected daily wages when I could
surmise or infer with confidence what the nature of the contracted work was. While
some occupations remained unspecified however; the rates they report are often the
same as some of the same activities reported in a given year. For example, a given
individual could paid 20 sols for travail aux foins (harvesting) and one line below, he
would be paid 20 sols for his journée de travail (day of work) without specification. In
such situations, I made inferences with regards to the nature of the work contracted.
The daily wage observations are those that will be the most useful for the purpose of
measuring labor productivity. The idea is that the wage rate represents adequately
the earnings of a given socio-economic group (that of the farmers) and also provide
an indicator of productivity growth.18 Moreover, as figure 2 indicates, the Séminaire
reported rations whose value for pensioners (enrolled students) and workers
remained roughly stable with the exception of the high inflation era of 1714-1719.
Although these were very rare for daily workers, it is important to note that they were
included to the wage rate when necessary.
As Robert Allen and al. put it: “Our knowledge of labour market conditions and the extent of
regional migration seem to substantiate the view that wage rates may serve as a reasonable proxy for
the average earnings of a particular socio-economic group as well as the marginal productivity of
labour in the economy as a whole”. Robert Allen, Jean-Pascal Bassino, Debin Ma, Christine MollMurata and Jan Luiten Van Zanden. 2011. “Wages, prices, and living standards in China, 1738-1925:
in comparison with Europe, Japan and India”, The Economic History Review, Vol.64, no.S1, p.29.
18
7
Figure 2: Sols per day allocated to workers who were fed in addition to their daily
wages compared with the pension for young students
45
40
35
30
25
Écolier
20
Workers
15
10
5
1688
1690
1692
1694
1696
1698
1700
1702
1704
1706
1708
1710
1712
1714
1716
1718
1720
1722
1724
1726
1728
1730
1732
1734
1736
1738
1740
0
Note : Écolier were the students who were enrolled that the Séminaire
Annual wages are more problematic. Sometimes, the account books are specific as
to the nature of the work that was contracted. However, this was not always the
case. Often, the account books would report that an individual had signed a three
year contract for a wage rate of 120 livres per year without any mention of what he
was to do. In some occasions, we find mention of this contract with hints of
numerous various occupations from farm work to repairs to carrying wood and
wheat. Annual observations are hence very hard to decipher because we do not
know what the nature of the work was. Moreover, we do not always know the precise
value of the payment in kinds that were associated with these contracts. As a result,
I collected numerous unspecified observations about engagement contracts. At the
beginning, I collected all engagements contracts that I could find but I reconsidered
the value of doing so since the unspecified contracts varied wildly. I have only kept
annual observations whose nature could be ascertained. Engagement contracts
were not the sole form of labor contract that could exist in New France. As we move
further into the 18th century, we find mention of annual wages paid to millers,
brewers, blacksmiths etc. These wages are well reported with mentions of whether
or not the contracting parties agreed to some form of payments in kind.
With regards to the establishment of what was the nature of the work which was
exchanged, the surnames sometimes contained the information. Table 1 shows how
some surnames were indicative of the trade occupied. In most instances, the wage
rates mentioned specify the nature of the trade in which the individual was engaged.
It is important to note however that sometimes, a menuisier (carpenter) could be
hired to work aux foins (in the fields) for tasks that had little to do with their area of
specialty. Hence, I sometimes recorded more than one wage observation that
pertained to one individual in a given year but for numerous different tasks. In some
cases, annual wages were mentioned but not the trade. In that instance it was
possible to cross-reference with the index of names at the Séminaire in order to
pinpoint the trade of the individual. Keeping notes of the names of the individuals
also allowed filling in some gaps about trades and occupations. Table 2 divides all
8
the tasks repertories with their original French designation and how they were
considered for the purposes of this thesis.
Table 1: Examples of name with trades
Surname
Trade
Masson or Macon
Mason
Charpentier
Carpenter
Meunier
Miller
Charet
Transporter (a charretier was the trade of
owning a cart to transport resources)
Table 2: Tasks classification
AGRICULTURAL TASKS (UNSKILLED)
NAME IN FRENCH
WHAT IT MEANT
Récoltes
Harvesting
Foins
Related to feeding livestock
Étable
Stable
Fauchage
Mowing
À la ferme
At the farm
Aux clôtures
Fencing (enclosing)
Défrichages
Land clearing
Aux fossés
Ditch digging
Au vacher
Cowherd
NON-AGRICULTURAL TASKS (UNSKILLED)
Scieur
Sawmiller
Ouvrier
Workman
Pour peinturer
For painting
SKILLED LABOUR
À la roue du moulin
At the wheel of the mill (miller)
Menuisier
Carpenter
Charpentier
Carpenter
Maçon
Stonemaker (bricklayer)
À la barque / navigation / matelot
Ship operation
One considerable advantage with the Séminaire data is that it is representative.
Normally, economic historians tend to be skeptical of how religious account books
recorded wages that might have been above the average level of wages because
religious estates were more productive. In the case of New France, one could point
out that religious congregations held estates that were settled earlier than most
farms in the colony. Hence, these estates would have had exhaustive land clearing
in the past and be closer to their peak level of productiveness. However, the
archives of the Séminaire provide us with sufficient information to see that this was
not the case and that it is a broadly representative set of lands to be used to mimic
the behaviour of wages in the whole of New France. This is mostly because the landclearing patterns are consistent with what was happening in the colony as a whole.
Remember that wages were collected from all the different estates of the Séminaire.
For example, waves of concessions to new farmers on the St-Ferréol estate were
still being made in the 1750s and 1780s which indicates that there were still
9
improvements to be made.19 One of the main estates, the Île Jésus was only
conceded to the Séminaire in 1702. 20 And that concession was only finalized in
1704.21 Additionally, land clearing was very slow. According to Sylvie Dépatie,
peasants on the estate of the Île Jésus owned by the Séminaire cleared land at the
pace of roughly 2 to 3 arpents (1 arpent = 0.845 acre) per year while the average
censive (farm plot) was roughly 110 to 150 arpents.22 Moreover, a large share of the
wage observations collected are related to land clearing tasks like draining ditches,
removing the rocks in a newly opened plot, building the fence and removing trees.
This provides appreciable assurance about the validity of those wage rates with
respect to the economy as a whole.
Another valuable aspect of the wage rates for unskilled tasks is that there were very
often paid for occasional work. For example, Jacques Mathieu mentions that most
skilled workers would often complement their income performing tasks unrelated to
their trade.23 In the off seasons – since the winters were very long in Canada24 –
peasants would often look for work to complement their income. Some would
venture in the fur trade25, but one very important activity in winter consisted of cutting
down and harvesting wood.26 There are mentions in the wage data collected of
individuals being paid for cutting down trees outside the harvest period. Otherwise,
some peasants could work for the Séminaire at a determined wage rate until they
had paid off their tithes obligations which they could not meet – something noted by
Sylve Dépatie.27 In other instances, some peasants would work on the farms of the
Séminaire to settle outstanding debts they had with the congregation. 28 In other
instances, a peasant would work on the farm of the estates for a short period of time
to acquire the capital necessary before settling on his own plot – capital which would
be used to finance consumption while the land was being cleared. 29 Others would
also combine the activity of land clearing on their own plots with some form of wage
earning for the congregation. This is broadly confirmed by the fact that the account
ASQ – Répertoire des titres, Saint-Ferréol
ASQ – SMES/1/15e – Brevet de confirmation de la concession de l’Île Jésus au Séminaire de
Québec.
21 ASQ – SMES/1/15d – L’abbé Jean-Frs Buisson de St-Côme demande au Conseil Souverain
l’enregistrement de la concession et du Brevet de confirmation de la concession de l’Île Jésus au
Séminaire de Québec.
22 Sylvie Dépatie. 1988. L’évolution d’une société rurale : l’Île Jésus au XVIIIème siècle. Montréal,
PhD Thesis, Department of History, McGill University, p.198.
23 Jacques Mathieu. 2001. La Nouvelle-France: les Français en Amérique du Nord, XVIe-XVIIIe
siècle. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, p.99.
24 Thomas Wien. 1990. “Les travaux pressants: calendrier agricole, assolement et productivité au
Canada au XVIIIe siècle” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, vol.43, no.4, pp.535-558.
25 Morris Altman. 1988. “Economic Growth, Economic Structure and Real Gross Domestic Product in
Early Canada, 1695-1739” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.45, p.685.
26 Jacques Mathieu. 2001. La Nouvelle-France: les Français en Amérique du Nord, XVIe-XVIIIe
siècle. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, p.93.
27 Sylvie Dépatie. 1988. L’évolution d’une société rurale : l’Île Jésus au XVIIIème siècle. Montréal,
PhD Thesis, Department of History, McGill University, p.92.
28 Ibid, p.105.
29 Ibid, p.189. Note: It ought to be pointed out that this point is broadly consistent with that made by
Frank Lewis concerning the farm economy of Upper Canada in the early 19 th century whereby
individuals would take temporary work in order to finance their consumption once they had acquired a
unit of land which needed to be cleared. Frank Lewis. 2001. “Farm Settlement with Imperfect Capital
Markets: A Life-Cycle Application to Upper Canada, 1826-1851”, Canadian Journal of Economics,
Vol.34, No.1, pp.174-195.
19
20
10
books of the Séminaire list creditors and debtors. The debtors were farmers who
possessed on the lands owned by the Séminaire and had to pay the seigniorial dues
like the cens et rentes and the lods et ventes (more on those later). Very often, these
same debtors were found as creditors a few pages later or even right on the next
page when they were paid for menial tasks related to construction, farming, land
clearing and transporting items. Therein lies the second advantage of the Séminaire
and Ursulines dataset: the daily wage observations are not associated with a
negative premium that workers would have endured in order to have steady
employment. The vast majority of work contracted was complementary and
represented closely the marginal productivity of labor. This argument does not
exclude the possibility that some workers accepted a lower rate in order to become a
steady part-time worker for the congregation, but I have found no evidence
supporting such a claim. Overall, this implies that we can use wages as an indicator
of marginal productivity of labor.
However, these comments apply for daily, workers who were hired on monthly and
annual basis are a different topic altogether. Workers hired annually are generally
found in the censuses as “domestics” – a broad term that not only encompassed
domestics proper but also cooks and farm helps. 30 Outside of these individuals,
only colonial administrators would earn wages on an annual basis. The 1762 census
of Trois-Rivières district reported that 6.6% of the population of that district was
engaged as domestics.31 That region proposes a distinctively high level and probably
represents the highest level of the entire colony. The 1762 census of the Quebec
district, in which the Séminaire and the Ursulines were located, reported a much
level of domestics relative to the population – 2.83%.32 Dépatie reported that in the
case of Montreal with the census of 1765, domestics represented 4.4% of the
population of the 11 concerned parishes.33 One of the channels to enter into an
annualized contract was if one young individual’s father contracted out the work of
his son or daughter to support the family income or allow for the necessary capital
accumulation needed to open one’s own farm. According to Louise Dechêne, the
average age of servants in the late 17th century in the Montreal area who were born
in Canada stood at 15 years old.34 A second channel would be through widows who
needed an income to support children after the death of a father.35 Other individuals
entering into annual contracts were skilled workers like millers and cooks. However,
the vast majority of workers in annualized contracts were immigrants from France. In
the 17th century, these were known as engagés who signed 36 months contracts.
The recruiting organization had to pay for the individual’s travel to New France, a
cash advance and committed itself to housing, clothing and feeding that individual. In
Sylvie Dépatie. 2008. “Maîtres et domestiques dans les campagnes montréalais au XVIIIe siècle:
bilan préliminaire”, Histoire, économie & société, Vol.27, no.4, p.52.
31 Gouvernement du Québec. 1947. Rapport de l’Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1946.
Québec : Bureau de l’archiviste, pp.1-51.
32 Gouvernement du Québec. 1926. Rapport de l’Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1925-6.
Québec : Bureau de l’archiviste, pp.1-32.
33 Sylvie Dépatie. 2008. “Maîtres et domestiques dans les campagnes montréalais au XVIIIe siècle:
bilan préliminaire”, Histoire, économie & société, Vol.27, no.4, p.53.
34 Louise Dechêne. 1974. Habitants et Marchands de Montréal au XVIIe siècle. Paris : Plon, p.362
35 Arnaud Bessières. 2008. "Le salaire des domestiques au Canada au XVIIe siècle" Histoire,
économie & société Vol.27, no. 4, p.43.
30
11
exchange, that individual would work on numerous tasks.36 Whilst indentured
servitude - did play a large role in the settling of America, it failed to attain the same
role in New France. Most of the settlers were often unwilling participants or
deportees or soldiers who chose to remain.37 In the 18th century, the majority of
those who came did so unwillingly as faux-sauniers – petty criminals who would
have been convicted for smuggling, selling of untaxed salt and poaching. 38 Many of
these faux-sauniers simply escaped thereafter to the American colonies, others were
drafted into the defensive military forces of the colony while the remaining individuals
signed contracts with the inhabitants to work as farm helps. The vast majority was
usually engaged in similar tasks as those they performed on the old continent –
cooks, millers, gardeners etc.39 In general, the annualized data concerned two select
demographic groups: young individuals who were native from the colony and
migrants (willful or non-willful). The first tended to occupy jobs as farm helps or
domestics until they had earned enough capital to finance their consumption for the
initial period of farm settlement. The second group was either contracted for skilled
trades or had aims similar to the former group. Hence, most annual observations
would concern such types of workers. The informational quality of annual wage
observations is thus less clear than in the case of daily and monthly wages. The
Séminaire data did not always provide the age of an individual with whom it
contracted. Nor did it always specify the nature of the annual contract. Sometimes, it
would merely write engagé or write pour son travail de l’année (for his work of the
year). Hence it is hard to assert what this wage rate relates to. Hence, it is hard to
assert if workers were accepted a negative premium for steady employment.
However, one should assume that annual workers did. When we take the annual
wages and divide them the by daily wages for similar tasks, in this case the unskilled
workers, we end up with between 59 and 160 days of work per year for the period
from 1688 to 1760. This should not be seen as a measure of their labor supply,
especially since it is hard to assert the value of in kind wages. Merely, it is indicative
that hired servants in New France did accept some form of negative wage premium
that was worth steady employment. The reader should be more careful when
interpreting the annual wage data for it is that data that this author feels the least
comfortable with. However, it is not null of value for the research – especially in
terms of validation. The annual wage rates follow a similar trend as those found by
Arnaud Bessières for domestics.40 The difference in level stems from the fact that the
Séminaire tended to pay individuals in specie while Bessières’ sample was derived
using notarial records which included private households – households which tended
to pay a larger share of wages in kind rather than in specie. As for monthly wages,
the reader should also be aware that this author finds them to be of lesser value than
the daily wages. The main reason for that is that they appear scantly in the archival
documents. However, as we will see below, there are useful in the sense that they
confirm the path followed by daily wages.
36
Jacques Mathieu. 2001. La Nouvelle-France: les Français en Amérique du Nord, XVIe-XVIIIe
siècle. Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, p.71.
37 Peter Moogk. 1989. “Reluctant Exiles: Emigrants from France in Canada before 1760”, William &
Mary Quarterly, Vol.46, No.3, pp.463-505.
38 Ibid, p.498.
39 Josianne Paul. 2008. Exilés au nom du roi: les fils de famille et les faux-sauniers en NouvelleFrance, 1723-1749. Montréal : Éditions du Septentrion, p. 153.
40 Arnaud Bessières. 2008. "Le salaire des domestiques au Canada au XVIIe siècle" Histoire,
économie & société Vol.27, no. 4, pp. 33-50.
12
Figure 3: Comparing annual wages of engagés collected from the Séminaire with
those available from the work of Arnaud Bessières
140
130
120
110
100
At least one year of
employment (Bessières)
90
Engagé
80
70
60
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
50
Source: See text; Note: The Séminaire accounts are probably a better source of payment in species
than other sources. The work of Arnaud Bessières on domesticity shows that payments in species
stood at 57.5% of domesticity contracts in the decade from 1680 to 1690 and 30.5% between 1700
and 1710.41 However, the sources used by authors like Bessière consider a wide variety of
contracting parties – many of which were private households. Such households likely had smaller
cash holdings with which to pay domestics. On the other hand, the Séminaire de Québec, by virtue of
being a large institution, more often relied with direct payment in specie to pay its workers. Hence, the
data – although fraught with complications – is of greater quality than the existing alternatives.
There is also another key feature of the labor market that must be mentioned: New
France had no guilds.42 There was an “absence of guilds and an exclusive” that
allowed apprenticeship to freely “respond to the needs of the labor market”. 43 There
were no prescriptions on the terms of contract, allowing contracts to be
individualized. In fact, free apprenticeships were not unheard of.44 In the absence of
guilds, we are hence observing relatively un-distorted wages in which the skill
premium is not predicated on artificially-induced scarcity. However, this was true
only in skilled trades like masons, carpenters, shoemakers, barrel-makers and
joiners.45 The colonial government created entry restrictions on the trades of
butchers and bakers. For example, in the district of Montreal, it is reported that
butchers had to pay 50 livres per annum for the right to operate as a butcher.46 But
this is not an important point given that we have very few observations for butchers
and bakers and most of the observations (as we will see below) are related to river
sailors, masons, sawers and carpenters.
Arnaud Bessière. 2008. “Le salaire des domestiques au Canada au XVIIe siècle”, Histoire,
économie & société, Vol.27, no.4, p.39.
42 Peter Moogk. 1971. “Apprenticeship indentures : A key to Artisan life in New France” Historical
Papers / Communications Historiques, Vol.6, No.1, pp.65-83.
43 Ibid, p.65.
44 Ibid, p.67.
45 Marc Vallières, Yvon Desloges, Fernand Harvey, Andrée Héroux, Réginald Auger, SophieLaurence Lamontagne and André Charbonneau. 2008. Histoire de Québec et de sa région, Tome 1 :
Des origines à 1791. Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, p.388-396.
46 Roland Viau. 2012. “Pour qui souffle le vent? Heur et malheur d’une entité coloniale, 1702-1760” in
eds. Dany Fougères, Histoire de Montréal et de sa région, Tome 1, Des Origines à 1930. Québec :
Presses de l’Université Laval, p. 207.
41
13
The result of this data compilation yields figures 4 through 10. 47The most reliable
data comes from the daily wage rates for unskilled workers. This data requires very
few interpolations and hence any conclusions drawn from this data will rely on fewer
assumptions than for other data. Hopefully, the data for the daily wages of unskilled
workers is also the one we are really concerned about since the vast majority of the
population entered the “unskilled” segment of the labor market. Basically, this
paper’s aim is to study the income of the “average” colonist and how much that
income would acquire in terms of a defined basket of goods.48 Thanks to figure 6, we
know that the data for daily wages follows a path similar to monthly wages.
Unfortunately, the quality of the data for skilled workers is of a lesser quality as they
are many gaps. The most reliable are those related to carpenters, but it is reassuring
to see that when we have observations for other trades, the evolution of the rates are
similar. Figure 7 provides a comparison of wage rates for the navigation sector on
both monthly and daily basis – the only of the three trades that has more than just a
few observations on an monthly basis. As was the case with unskilled wages, the
behavior of the rates observed is similar which is again reassuring with regards to
the quality of the wage rates. As for annual wage rates in figure 8, the results are
indicative of the fixed nature of contractual terms that were harder to change. The
annual wage data will not be useful for the purposes of measuring living standards,
but they will become useful in future research, notably in the last part of this thesis.
Figure 9 provides the illustration of wages deflated by the price index created in the
past section. As one can see, figure 9 shows that real wages for carpenters were
steadily increasing – probably reflecting the scarcity of skills in the colony. However,
the real wages of unskilled workers did not increase – it followed a pretty flat line
although there were ups and downs. The wage rate was deflated using the COLI
Geloso-Paterson Shearer Composite which ended in 1740. Figure 10 illustrates what
happened to real wages after 1740 using a different price index. However, as we
mentioned in part three of my thesis, it is impossible to use the price index used for
figure 9 past 1740. Since the 19 goods index derived earlier in my thesis moves in
similar magnitudes and direction to the COLI Geloso-Paterson-Shearer Composite, I
also present real wages using that index in figure 10.
Figure 4: Nominal wages in livres per day for unskilled workers
47
The data on the unskilled wages and carpenters contained missing values, which were interpolated
using the MATLAB software and the “iterpl” function from the set of the 1-D interpolation methods.
The option “spline” was used for the method of interpolation. This option represents the piecewise
cubic spline interpolation method as in de Boor using not-a-knot end conditions. The usage of the
piecewise treatment helps to avoid the Runge’s phenomenon of oscillation of polynomials of higher
degrees and decreases the interpolation error compared to linear or simple polynomial interpolation
methods. Carl de Boor. 2001. A Practical Guide to Splines (Revised Edition), New York: Springer,
p.23. The interpolation has been kindly provided thanks to the help of Vadim Kufenko of Hohenheim
University’s department of economics.
48 Robert Allen. 2009. “How Prosperous were the Romans?: Evidence from Diocletian’s Price Edict
(AD 301)” in eds. Alan Bowman and Andrew Wilson, Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and
Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.327-345. This article from Allen provides an efficient of
the justification behind the use of welfare ratios, which we will use later in this paper.
14
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
1760
1757
1754
1751
1748
1745
1742
1739
1736
1733
1730
1727
1724
1721
1718
1715
1712
1709
1706
1703
1700
1697
1694
1691
1688
0.00
Figure 5: Nominal wages in livres per day for carpenters, masons and navigation
workers
10
9
8
7
6
Carpenter
5
Mason
4
Navigation
3
2
1
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
1742
1745
1748
1751
1754
1757
0
Figure 6: Monthly wages in livres per month (left axis) compared with daily wages
(right axis) for unskilled workers
15
35
3.5
30
3
25
2.5
20
2
15
1.5
10
1
0.5
0
0
Unskilled Daily (Right
Axis)
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
1742
1745
5
Unskilled Monthly (Left
Axis)
Figure 7: Monthly wages in navigation within the colony in livres (left axis) compared
with daily wages (right axis)
10
90
9
80
8
70
7
60
6
50
5
Navigation Monthly (Left
Axis)
40
4
Navigation Daily (Right
Axis)
30
3
20
2
10
1
0
0
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
100
Figure 8: Annual wages for engagés, domestics and servants at the Séminaire
16
180
160
140
120
100
80
1688
1690
1692
1694
1696
1698
1700
1702
1704
1706
1708
1710
1712
1714
1716
1718
1720
1722
1724
1726
1728
1730
1732
1734
1736
1738
1740
1742
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
60
Figure 9: Real wages for unskilled workers and carpenters with a three years
moving average (in black) in livres per day from 1690 to 1740 using the COLI
Geloso-Paterson-Shearer Composite Index
3.5
3
2.5
Unskilled wages
2
Carpenters wage
1.5
Unskilled (moving
average 3 years)
1
Carpenters (moving
average 3 years)
0.5
1738
1735
1732
1729
1726
1723
1720
1717
1714
1711
1708
1705
1702
1699
1696
1693
1690
0
17
Figure 10: Real wages for unskilled workers and carpenters with a three years
moving average (in black) in livres per day from up to 1760 using the 19 goods index
4
3.5
3
Unskilled wages
2.5
Carpenters wage
2
Unskilled (moving
average 3 years)
1.5
Carpenters (moving
average 3 years)
1
0.5
1690
1694
1698
1702
1706
1710
1714
1718
1722
1726
1730
1734
1738
1742
1746
1750
1754
1758
0
Section 4: Deriving Income Estimates
Ultimately, our goal is to create welfare ratios as is commonly used by numerous
economic historians. The problem is that we must further assert the quality of wages
as a proxy for overall income. In short, the question of the current section relates to
whether or not we can safely make inferences about incomes on the basis of wages.
Economic historians like Paul Bairoch tend to believe that we can use wages as an
indicator of Gross National Product (GNP).49 However, this claim can be disputed on
the basis that pre-industrial economies have wage rates that are not fully
representative of the broad economy.50 And indeed, in the case of New France,
some could make the claim that wages are not fully representative and might induce
a wrong representation of the economy. Alan Greer pointed out that the average
worker “with earnings coming in during only part of the year, would be hard-pressed
to maintain himself at the even most basic level in the long run”. 51 Summarizing the
seminal works of Richard Harris and Louise Dechêne, Greer points out that since
self-employment as a farmer was the dominant choice, there would have been no
such thing as a “free market” for labour.52 In the previous section, I have outlined
why I believe that the wage statistics collected from the Séminaire are broadly
correct and that the wage rate should be seen as the marginal productivity of labour
and representative of average earnings.53 Moreover, it would be shortsighted to
Paul Bairoch. 1989. “Wages as an Indicator of Gross National Product” in eds. Peter Scholliers,
Real Wages in 19th and 20th century Europe: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. New York:
Berg Publishing, pp.51-60.
50 Dietrich Ebeling. 1989. “Some Remarks on the Relationship between Overall Economic Output and
Real Wages in the Pre-Industrial Period” in eds. Peter Scholliers, Real Wages in 19th and 20th century
Europe: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. New York: Berg Publishing, pp.61-66.
51 Alan Greer. 1997. The People of New France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p.56.
52 Ibid, p.56.
53 In this work, Robert Allen and al. offer justification of such a claim : Robert Allen, Jean-Pascal
Bassino, Debin Ma, Christine Moll-Murata and Jan Luiten Van Zanden. 2011. “Wages, prices, and
living standards in China, 1738-1925: in comparison with Europe, Japan and India”, The Economic
History Review, Vol.64, no.S1, p.29.
49
18
consider that peasants were working exclusively in one sector. Market exchanges
were always an open option the habitant farmer. Even if he chose not to trade his
labor on the market, he could always do so at the prevailing price – which was
reflective of the marginal product of labor. However, some readers might still be left
unconvinced by my theoretical claim. I can try to alleviate any potential qualm by
comparing unskilled wages with the measurement of agricultural income as
produced by Morris Altman based on census data. His measure of Gross Domestic
Product provides us with the measurement of income per capita. However, the main
criticism laid at Altman’s feet was that his method of multiplying all census quantities
by 1749 prices was a costly shortcut. This criticism might lead some to be skeptical
of any comparisons I provide between my statistics and his. As a result, I
recalculated the output measures proposed by Altman but with one major
specification change – I used prices related to the year of each census to calculate
the value of total output. Skeptical readers are invited to consult Altman’s
methodology and bear in mind that the only difference is that I calculated output on
the basis of annual prices. Since we are concerned with the income of the “average
individual”, we are basically talking about the income of a farm owner. Consequently,
I only took agricultural production plus the value of land clearing, plus the value of
firewood output and divided it over the non-urban share of the population of New
France. The result, in nominal terms, is illustrated in figure 11 below.
Figure 11: Farm Income per Household Using Altman’s Methods with
Improvements (in current livres)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
The problem for us is that Altman’s measure is one of overall production which
includes the contribution of wives and older children. This means that we must
approximate the total number of days provided by a household. The following issue
is to derive a measure of income year round based on wages. Basically, we want to
have an estimate of how many days of work an individual performed in a year. The
main problem is that, given Canada’s harsh weather, it was impossible for a worker
to only work in harvest time. According to Thomas Wien, the season in which one
could work his farm only lasted 150 days – and sometimes even less.54 Obviously, it
Thomas Wien. 1990. “Les travaux pressants: calendrier agricole, assolement et productivité au
Canada au XVIIIe siècle” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, vol.43, no.4, p.556.
54
19
would be foolish to assert that 150 days of work per year was sufficient to assure a
reliable standard of living. Male farm workers could complement their income by
providing timber and firewood for urban markets and providing some work while in
the city.55 However, this would still have been very far from sufficient to provide
subsistence to a household – especially given the large size of households in New
France. In general, the studies of the families of New France all tend to point towards
a modal household size of 6 individuals.56 It is worth noting that a similar figure was
observed for the American colonies – at 5.85 members per household on average.57
Moreover, most authors note that the French Canadians were appreciably well-off.
The most striking example comes from the work of Martin Fournier who documents
the dietary habits of the French Canadians. By contemporary standards, these were
very rich diets. In fact, Fournier provides a series of “popular recipes” which were
very rich in fats, salts and starches.58 Another striking feature is that oats were used
to feed animals.59 In his own work, Robert Allen that oats were qualified as grain in
England but it was given to animals to feed them while in Scotland, it was the diet of
the people.60 Given such observations, it is doubtful that an individual working only
during the harvest would have fared well. Other sources of income were needed. In
great part, these additional sources would have come from the output from women.
55
Richard Harris. 1966 [1984]. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s
University, p.114. Later in this book, Harris (p.162) documents how income could be complemented
through the provision of wood products to the urban markets. Donald Paterson and William Marr also
pointed out how important the timber trade would have been in the early days of land clearing for any
new farm household. The main advantage from these operations as Paterson and Marr pointed out
was that “cutting timber was generally carried out at the time of the year when no major farming effort
was necessary” (p.65). Eventually, the sale of the timber products – which were a byproduct of land
clearing – would serve to finance consumption in the early years of settlement. William Marr and
Donald Paterson. 1980. Canada : An Economic History. Toronto: Gage Publishing.
56 Louise Dechêne. 1992 [1974]. Habitants and Merchants in Seventeenth Century Montreal. Montreal
and Kingston : McGill-Queen’s University Press, p.238. As Dechêne points out in her work : “the
modal structure was four children, or six people per household”. She added that “rough calculations
based on later aggregate censuses, indicate that that the number of children per family remained
more or less stable until the beginning of the eighteenth century”. For the 18 th century, the data
provided by George Langlois confirms that Dechêne’s family structure did not evolve considerably.
Collecting mortality, nuptiality and baptisms statistics from the different parishes of Quebec, Langlois
managed to recreate our modern estimates of mortality, nuptiality and fertility in the colony up to the
formation of the Canadian Confederation. His figures suggest that for each marriage being sanctified
in the colony between 1700 and 1760, there were 5.78 births. Georges Langlois. 1935. Histoire de la
Population Canadienne-Française. Montréal : Éditions Albert Lévesque, pp.255-262. Marilyn Gentil of
the University of Montreal has compiled infant mortality quotient for the 18th century which allow us to
correct this figure. Throughout the 18th century up to 1760 (but not thereafter), the infant mortality rate
(below one year of age) increases steadily from 15% of all births to roughly 30% of all births. This
brings the figure much closer to four children left on average per family. Adding mortality of other
children who were above the one-year old threshold, the figure of four children per set of parents
seems to hold in the 18th century. Marilyn Gentil. 2009. Les Niveaux et les Facteurs Déterminants de
la Mortalité Infantile en Nouvelle-France et au début du Régime Anglais (1621-1779). PhD thesis,
department of demography, Université de Montréal, p.145.
57 Jean-Louis Flandrin. 1979. Family in Former Times : Kinship, Household and Sexuality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 55.
58 Martin Fournier. Jardins et Potagers en Nouvelle-France : Joie de Vivre et Patrimoine Culinaire.
Montréal : Éditions Septentrion.
59 Morris Altman. 1988. “Economic Growth, Economic Structure and Real Gross Domestic Product in
Early Canada, 1695-1739” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.45, p.684.
60 Robert Allen. 2009. “How Prosperous were the Romans?: Evidence from Diocletian’s Price Edict
(AD 301)” in eds. Alan Bowman and Andrew Wilson, Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and
Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 342.
20
Few authors give attention to this topic, but it is often mentioned in passing that
women were given piece-rates work to complement the family income. In fact, my
own collection of data from the Séminaire yielded numerous piece-rates
observations to wives of some workers. For example, 1 livre was paid for la façon
d’une culotte (making pants) in 1723 while the blanchissement de quatre chemises
(cleaning shirts) was remunerated at 4 sols per shirt. Children were also appreciable
contributors to family income. For example, they could be used as field hands, 61 but
also as producers of fruits. An early 19th century guide for emigrants to Canada
noted that families around Québec City sent their children to gather small fruits and
then sell them to city dwellers at a moderate price. 62 From this we can gain an
image of all the potential earnings sources of households. However, it is not
sufficient for us to estimate the exact number of days worked in total. More
importantly, we don’t know the “wage rate” actually paid to women and what was
their contributory share of household income.63 As a result, we must rely on a
plausible range estimate. When calculating welfare ratios, economic historians
simply assume that a male worked provided 250 days of work in order to measure
the purchasing power of his work relative to a fixed a basket of goods. However, this
would not be representative of the level of income enjoyed by the household as it
would yield an income considerably lower the requirements of the average sixperson household. A reliable method to estimate the total number of days worked in
a year is to use data from America. In the American colonies, the adult male worked
312 days per year according to numerous authors.64 In their work estimating welfare
ratios for pre-revolution America, Lindert and Williamson postulated that they
believed that “for those days or months in which a person did not hold his or her
main stated job, he or she nonetheless filled in with other productive work, like
weaving and farming at home, and some of this output was traded on the market”. 65
While Lindert and Williamson were making this argument to the calculation of a
welfare ratio – which only requires an adult male – we can still apply this logic to the
household contribution of women. However, it is hard to find how many days per
year a women did work in terms that are equivalent to a male. However, in the
course of my work, I did collect some wage observations that concerns female
workers.66 They were not included in our wages data above, but they were collected
nonetheless for the purpose of comparing male and female wages. The data points
(there are very few sadly) I have for female wages tend to indicate that for similar
jobs, they earned a steady 42% less (sadly, no econometric control is possible) than
61
André Lachance. 2000. Vivre, aimer et mourir en Nouvelle-France: La vie quotidienne aux XVIIe et
XVIIIe siècles. Montréal : Éditions Libre Expression, pp.60-66.
62 No author specified. 1820. The Emigrant’s guide to the British settlements in Upper Canada and the
United States of America. London : T. Keys, p.90.
63 This point is well argued by Alan Greer who points out that “women made an incalculable
contribution to the early Canadian economy, ‘incalculable’ if only because it cannot be measured”.
Alan Greer. 1997. The People of New France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p.67.
64 Donald Adams. 1986. “Prices and Wages in Maryland, 1750-1850”, Journal of Economic History,
Vol.46, No.3, p. 635; Jeffrey Williamson and Peter H.Lindert. 2013. “American Incomes Before and
After the Revolution”, Journal of Economic History, Vol.73, No.3, p.736.
65 Ibid, p.736.
66 Wages for women that were recorded were rarely for the same tasks as males and very often,
when they were hired under engagements contracts, the nature of their skills was not specified.
Hence, I am left with a very small number of observations that compare reliably males and females for
the same trades. However, it is sufficient for the purposes of this paper as it merely attempts to
approximate how large the contribution of female workers would have been if measured in terms of
“male-day” equivalents.
21
their male counterpart.67 Assuming that they worked full time (also 312 days) but that
these days provided an income 42% inferior to those of male workers, we can add a
total of 181 days as “male-worker” equivalent. Overall, this suggests that households
provided altogether 492 days of adult “male-worker” equivalents. Figure 12 shows
how this measure of income compares relative to the Altman figures. As we can see,
the estimate is not relatively similar to the same level as the farm household income
derived from Altman, but the evolution is strikingly similar. This offers great
reassurance with regards to the capacity of wages to represent living standards
truthfully.
Figure 12: Farm Income per Household Using Altman’s Methods with Improvements
(in livres) compared with wages multiplied by 492 days of work to derive household
income.
2500
2000
1500
Altman
1000
Geloso (Wages * 492)
500
0
Section 5: The “Respectability Baskets” and “Bare Bones Baskets” for
welfare ratios
As stipulated earlier, one of the goals of this thesis is to provide a comparison of
living standards both across time for Quebec and across societies at different point
in times. The intent of collecting prices and wages was ultimately to construct welfare
ratios akin to Robert Allen’s work.68 Welfare ratios are constructed first by creating a
basket of goods and services that households would need to achieved an objective
standard of living. Then, one calculates the number of times an average-sized family
was able to buy that basket given the prevailing wages, on the assumption of 250
67
In 1699, Catherine (with an unreadable surname) was paid 70 livres while Jérémie Auger was paid
120 livres; In 1703, Françoise Brassard was also hired as a domestic for 70 livres per year while
Jérémie Auger, Claude Sembela and Jean Falardeau received 120 livres also as domestics; In 1704,
one women (unnamed) was hired as an engagée paid 70 livres per year while all the other male
engagés received 120 livres per annum with one earning 135 livres. Overall, this suggests that they
earned 41.67% less than men – which I rounded up to 42%. This seems high, but this author feels
safer with a high estimate which acts against his principal claim.
68 Robert C.Allen. 2001. “The great divergence in European wages and prices from the Middle Ages
to the First World War” Explorations in economic history, Vol.38, No.4, pp.411-447.
22
days of work per annum. It is with this work that Allen managed to create
comparisons of French and British living standards during the 18th century. It is also
with such ratios that Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson derived their comparisons
of American and British living standards prior to the War of Independence. 69 Other
authors have used welfare ratios to measure living standards in medieval
Byzantium70, late 19th century to mid-20th century British Africa71 and 18th century to
20th century China.72 Readers should be aware that this author expects to find a high
standard of living in Quebec relative to other societies at the time. This is because
most authors of have written about the living standards of French Canadians have
tended to described them as such. Although examples are numerous, the best
example supporting this expectation is that of Richard Harris who asserted “there
can be little doubt that his [the French Canadian’s] standard of living was
substantially higher than that of most of the peasants in France, or that it compared
favorably with living standards in rural New England”.73
Hence, the computational exercise of welfare ratios requires a lengthy discussion on
what the basket of goods ought to be. There are two definitions of a basket that we
ought to consider. The first is meant to include the impact of the introduction of new
goods that came with the colonization of the Americas – tobacco, tea and coffee –
and is meant as a basket of goods that represents a “respectable standard of living”.
Basically, this means a basket that would reflect consumption the mere satisfaction
of basic needs.74 The second basket is one which aims to measure how well one
could satisfy his basic needs. In his works, Robert Allen cites that the English
“respectability basket” provided roughly 2500 calories per person and 112 grams of
protein per person.75 As for the subsistence (also known as “bare bones”), he
considers that it yielded 1938 calories and 89 grams of protein.76
In the case of New France, it is quite likely that the respectability threshold was close
to what could be achieved by households. According to Richard Harris, each person
required 6 minots of wheat per year (one minot = 1.107 bushels). 77 This translates
into 1593 calories per day per person.78 This is obviously not a sufficient diet for
69
Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. 2014. American Colonial Incomes, 1650-1774. Cambridge,
MA : National Bureau of Economic Research.
70 Branko Milanovic. 2006. “An estimate of average income and inequality in Byzantium around year
1000”, Review of Income and Wealth, Vol.52, no.3, pp.449-470.
71 Ewout Frankema and Marlous Van Waijenburg. 2012. “Structural impediments to African growth?
New evidence for real wages in British Africa, 1880-1965”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 72, No.4,
pp.895-926.
72 Joerg Baten, Debin Ma, Stephen Morgan and Qing Wang. 2010. “Evolution of living standards and
human capital in China in the 18th-20th centuries: Evidences from real wages, age-heaping and
anthropometrics”, Explorations in Economic History, Vol.47, No.3, pp.347-359.
73 Richard Harris. 1966 [1984]. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s
University, p.166.
74 Robert C.Allen. 2001. “The great divergence in European wages and prices from the Middle Ages
to the First World War” Explorations in economic history, Vol.38, No.4, pp.420.
75 Robert C. Allen. 2009. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University, p.36.
76 Ibid, p.37.
77 Richard Harris. 1966 [1984]. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s
University, p.160.
78 Christian Dessureault. 2005. "L'évolution de la productivité agricole dans la plaine de Montréal,
1852-1871: grandes et petites exploitations dans un système familial d'agriculture." Social
History/Histoire Sociale, vol.38, no.76, p.265.
23
people living in an agricultural economy like the one in New France and it could not
have been the sole item in their diets. Thanks to the work of Donald Fyson, we are
aware that grains represented 56% of all the calories consumed by workers in the
early 19th century.79 We can infer that the 1593 calories per day represented only
56% of the energy intake of workers which means that adding the remaining 44%
translates into a total intake of 2845 calories per day. 80 This total amount of calories
is roughly comparable to the totals proposed by other sources on Quebec history
(see Table 3).
Table 3: Calories in food components
Geloso (1688-1740)
2845 calories / day
Rousseau (1704-1713)
2632 calories / day
Rousseau (1714-1723)
2628 calories / day
Rousseau (1724-1733)
3504 calories / day
Lachance (mid-18th century
2958 calories / day
soldiers in New France)
François Rousseau. 1983. L’œuvre de Chère en Nouvelle-France : Le régime des malades à l’hôtelDieu de Québec. Québec Presses de l’Université Laval, p.340; André Lachance. 2000. Vivre, Aimer
et Mourrir en Nouvelle-France : La Vie Quotidienne au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Montréal : Éditions
Libre Expression, p.148.
It is generally accepted that wheat represented close to three quarters of all grain
output in the colony of New France.81 As a result, three quarters of -the 56% of the
energy needs of workers that came from starches will be allocated equally between
wheat and flour while the remaining quarter will be divided equally between oats and
peas. Again, according to the data collected by Donald Fyson, meat and alcohol
represented respectively 21% and 10% of calorie intake (597 calories and 284
calories).82 Fyson also mentions that sugar and dairy products represented 8% and
6% of calories. Sadly, I don’t have sufficient data points regarding sugar, so I had to
scale down the measures over all non-sugar items. In addition to this, I was not able
to find any mention of how many eggs were consumed annually. I added three
dozen eggs per year which represents 34 calories per day per person. Finally, the
work of Allan Greer provides us with an estimate of 30 pounds of salt per adult per
year – 13,608 grams per year.83
With regards to the non-food components, one of the larger items in terms of
expenditures for households was firewood. Quebec is an especially cold area of
Donald Fyson. 1992. “Du pain au madère: L’alimentation à Montréal au début du XIXe siècle”,
Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, vol.46, no.1, p.74.
80 Agricultural work, as pointed out by Craig Muldrew, tended to require much larger quantities of
calories. However, these calories were disproportionately expended during the harvest. In New
France, activity dropped importantly in winter – winters which were considerably longer than those
experienced in Europe. See: Craig Muldrew.2011. Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness:
Work and Material Culture in Agrarian England, 1550-1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
p.131
81 Morris Altman. 1983. “Seignorial Tenure in New France, 1688-1739: An Essay on Income
Distribution and Retarded Economic Development”. Historical Reflections / Réflexions historiques,
Vol.10, No.3, pp.335-375.
82 Donald Fyson. 1992. “Du pain au madère: L’alimentation à Montréal au début du XIXe siècle”,
Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, vol.46, no.1, p.74.
83 Allan Greer. 1985. Peasant, Lord and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 17401840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p.35.
79
24
North America which means that fuel was likely to have commanded a larger share
of a household’s expenditures than would have been the case elsewhere in the
world. In the 18th century, it was estimated that a priest required 25 cords of wood
per year.84 In the late 17th century, it was estimated that a widow required 20 cords of
firewood without any specification of the period for which they were required. 85 As for
lighting and heating, it is hard to know the per capita level of candle consumption.
The best starting point with regards to constituting a basket is from the work of Allan
Greer.86 In his work, Greer manages to provide us with a basket of consumption for a
peasant family in the plains of Montreal. As a young man, Joseph Blanchard and his
wife (unnamed) promised a pension to his father (also named Joseph) and mother
who had given him their lands. The son was to provide 5 kg of Candles or 3 pots of
burning oil for his parents. At this ratio, this meant that 0.6 pots of burning oil was
considered equivalent to 1 Kg of candles. In order to include some form of oil in the
basket, I included one pot per year and excluded 1.2 kg of candles. Finally, with
regards to cloth, there is little data about the French era, but we know that in 1827,
Lower Canadian families produced, on average, 8.3 yards of cloth per person – a
figure that we will apply here and which will be transferred from the French measure
of aune (1.30 yards per aune).87
Taken altogether, this suggests that New France probably could acquire many times
the bare bones basket. Yet, one should be careful to not go too far. Most of the data
mentioned above stems from work drawn either from probate records, religious
congregations or from travellers recounting their tales. The former type of source is
apparently concentrated in the upper echelons of society. This is because those who
signed probate records in Quebec tended to be richer individuals, or at the very least
were individuals that were more educated. They also tended to concern older
individuals which imply a selection bias. Individuals who got around writing a
testament were individuals who had managed to live past a point that many did not
manage to reach. Hence, the poorer levels of the New France society were not well
represented.88 Secondly, religious congregations like that of the Augustines studied
by Rousseau offer very rich consumption diets. But these are very likely nonrepresentative of overall trends and levels. The calories consumption reported by
Rousseau, which are very high and reported in table 12, were for patients of the
hospital – one fifth of which were women and who would have required fewer than
the more 2500 calories per day reported by Rousseau.89 And these were calories
for workers who were ill and needed to recover from different types of illness and
Marcel Mousette. 1983. Le chauffage domestique au Canada: des origines à l’industrialisation.
Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, p. 35
85 Ibid, p.37.
86 Allan Greer. 2000. Habitants, Marchands et Seigneurs : la Société Rurale du Bas Richelieu, 17401840. Montréal : Éditions Septentrion, p.54-55.
87 David Thiery Ruddel. 1990. “Domestic Textile Production in Colonial Quebec, 1608-1840”, Material
Culture Review / Revue de la culture matérielle, Vol.31, No.1, p.42.
88 Peter Russell summarizes this point nicely when he surveys a debate between Jean-Pierre Wallot
and Gilles Paquet on the one hand with Yves Morin on the other hand. In the early 1980s, Wallot and
Paquet produced a breathtaking sample of probate records for Lower Canada (as it was known when
under British rule) from 1792 to 1835 which showed positive wealth growth rates throughout the
period studied. Morin questioned the validity of those statistics indicating that they represented mostly
upper class, richer and literate individuals. See Peter Russell. 2012. How Agriculture Made Canada:
Farming in the Nineteenth Century. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, p.61-62.
89 François Rousseau. 1983. L’œuvre de Chère en Nouvelle-France : Le régime des malades à
l’hôtel-Dieu de Québec. Québec Presses de l’Université Laval, p.40-41.
84
25
injuries – some of which were of a military nature. Indeed, one third of all male
admissions at the end of the 17th century were officers, sub-officers, soldiers and
sailors. In other years like those between 1747 and 1751 – more than half (54.3%) of
the 3242 admissions were for soldiers and officers.90 Finally, contemporary
observers like the often quoted Pehr Kalm (a Swedish botanist who visited the
colony in the 1740s) actually spent very little time with the common inhabitants.
Numerous authors have quoted Kalm91 who often described the richness of the diets
of the inhabitants like his assertion “French-Canadian meals, if I may say so, are
usually overabundant; they are served numerous dishes: soups as well as a variety
of meat (...)”92 That latter quotation did not refer to the French-Canadians per se but
rather to members of the French-Canadian clergy – hardly a representative group.
Although there is much to keep from his observations, one should be careful. Lot of
this skepticism stems from the reading of the work of Serge Lambert that studied
institutions aimed at helping the poor in New France. His work, concentrated on
urban centers, suggests very low living standards which are fairly generalized in the
form of high vulnerability to small economic shocks.93 All things considered, it is likely
that the French-Canadians enjoyed a level of living standards many times above the
bare bones basket.94
At this point, we must derive a basket of consumption. Testing only one basket might
be problematic however. Consequently, we will attempt numerous different
specifications. What will be designated below as “bare bones basket 1a” and
“respectable basket 1a” and will be the ones used for comparisons with other
societies in the Americas and Europe. However, the other baskets are created in
order to test the robustness of the results to difference specifications change. The
hope is that by testing with alternative specifications, we will be able to assert the
robustness of the estimates provided in this paper. As we will see, these alternative
specifications do not change the general behavior or alter significantly the level of
the cost of the baskets. Here are the baskets that we will generate:
1) Bare bones basket 1a: a basket which relies on oats and where firewood will
be represented by white oak
2) Bare bones basket 1b : a basket which relies on oats and where firewood will
be represented by Canadian pine
90
Ibid, p.42-44.
Richard Harris. 1966 [1984]. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s
University, p.165.
92 Quoted in in Paul-Louis Martin. 2002. Les Fruits du Québec: histoire et traditions des douceurs de
la table. Montréal : Éditions Septentrion, p.49.
93 Serge Lambert. 2001. Entre la crainte et la compassion : les pauvres à Québec au temps de la
Nouvelle-France. Sainte-Foy, Les Éditions GID.
94 Volume 1 of the Histoire de Québec et de sa région provides a long discussion on the issue of
popular gastronomy in the colony. The authors illustrate that there is a great demand, illustrated from
import data, for olive oil, olives, rum, coffee, and chocolate. Although it is possible that some of these
were the adage of the richest, but olive oil is indeed commonly reported as a “popular item” found in
rural households. Proteins also seem to be consumed in large quantities via eels, codfish, beef and
lard. Animal bones found in archaeological dig sites also suggest a large consumption of meat items.
Overall, this is suggestive of the applicability of the “respectability basket”. Marc Vallières, Yvon
Desloges, Fernand Harvey, Andrée Héroux, Réginald Auger, Sophie-Laurence Lamontagne and
André Charbonneau. 2008. Histoire de Québec et de sa région, Tome 1 : Des origines à 1791.
Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, p.503-536.
91
26
3) Bare bones basket 2a : a basket which relies on wheat and where firewood
will be represented by white oak
4) Bare bones basket 2b: a basket which relies on wheat and where firewood will
be represented by Canadian pine
5) Bare bones basket 3a : a basket where candles and lamp oil are eliminated
and white oak firewood becomes the sole of heating and lighting
6) Bare bones basket 3b : a basket where candles and lamp oil are eliminated
and Canadian pine firewood becomes the sole of heating and lighting
7) Respectable basket 1a: a basket of respectable consumption where firewood
will be represented by white oak
8) Respectable basket 1b: a basket of respectable consumption where firewood
will be represented by Canadian pine
In his work, Robert Allen creates a basket where maize was the dominant grain for
the bare bones subsistence basket of goods, providing 1655 calories. The other
items are straightforward and may very well apply to Quebec in the 17 th and 18th
centuries. However, maize is a not a good item to use for New France. According to
census data, it did not appear as a common farm product until the 19 th century. One
could fall back on oats as a reliable source of calories. However, this is potentially
problematic point. It should be pointed that oats were primarily used to feed animals
according to Morris Altman who computed their production in censuses as an input
for feeding stock.95 They would have rarely appeared in the diets of the habitants.
However, that is not the issue at hand – the issue is: was it a cheap source of
calories and hence a good than can be included in the bare bones basket as the
cheapest alternative possible. We know that one minot of oats provided only 62% of
the calories of a minot of wheat.96 The physical weight of a minot of oats was 34
pounds while a minot of wheat weighed 60 pounds. This lower caloric output was
more than compensated by the differential in yields per unit of land. According to
Marvin McInnis, who used mid-19th century data, one acre could yield either 9.2
bushels of wheat or 18.6 bushels of oats.97 This means that one acre of land under
oats yielded 26% more calories than wheat. This suggests that oats was an available
way to obtain calories – without making too large a sacrifice elsewhere. Implicitly, it
also suggests that if the French-Canadians desired the cheapest source of calories,
they would have opted for oats but they went rather for wheat which suggests that
they could assume the “caloric cost” of their preference for wheat. Moreover, if we
look at the cost of a calorie from oats relative to the cost of a calorie from wheat (see
figure 13), we can see that it was cheaper in most years – with some exceptions.
This suggests that oats could be a good item for a bare bones basket of goods.
Figure 13: Relative price of oats to wheat based on calories provided, 1688 to 1760
Morris Altman. 1988. “Economic Growth, Economic Structure and Real Gross Domestic Product in
Early Canada, 1695-1739” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.45, p.684.
96 Christian Dessureault. 2005. "L'évolution de la productivité agricole dans la plaine de Montréal,
1852-1871: grandes et petites exploitations dans un système familial d'agriculture." Social
History/Histoire Sociale, vol.38, no.76, p.265.
97 Marvin McInnis. 1981. “Some Pitfalls in the 1851-1852 Census of Agriculture of Lower Canada”,
Social History / Histoire Sociale, vol.14, no.27, p. 227.
95
27
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
1760
1757
1754
1751
1748
1745
1742
1739
1736
1733
1730
1727
1724
1721
1718
1715
1712
1709
1706
1703
1700
1697
1694
1691
1688
0.0%
A second important problem is the type of firewood that was used to obtain heating.
Baskets of goods conceived to allow the construction of welfare ratios are generally
centered on a common standard of wellbeing – the energy derived in terms of BTUs.
In his work, Robert Allen and his co-authors attribute a value of 2 million BTU per
person per year in North America.98 The problem in our case is that Canada is filled
with different types of firewood. According to the history of the timber trade in
Canada from 1763 to 1867 written by Arthur Lower, the colony of Quebec was filled
with both pine and oak99 – two trees whose combustion yield different quantities of
energy (24.2 million BTU per cord and 14.8 million BTU per cord of 128 cubic
feet).100 Consequently, the cost of the basket will depend greatly on the type of
firewood selected. This is why each basket has a variant in terms of the type of
firewood used. Finally, given the large abundance of firewood in an economy where
land clearing was an important activity, lamp oil and candles could have been easily
substituted by a greater amount of firewood. Hence, it would be advisable to
eliminate these two and increase the amount of firewood consumed. However, there
is a specification in the Allen et al. basket for subsistence that is questionable.
According to Allen, one person consumed 2 MBTU in fuel per annum. In terms of
French cord of firewood (which stood at 48 cubic feet), this represent less than 1
cord of firewood per person (5.55 MBTU per cord of pine and 9.075 MBTU per cord
of white oak). Assuming a consumption of less than one cord of firewood per annum
is questionable given that this is very far from all the estimates found in the literature
that place consumption somewhere between 20 and 25 cords for households which
Robert Allen, Tommy Murphy and Eric Schneider. 2012. “The Colonial Origins of the Divergence in
the Americas : A Labor Market Approach”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp.863-94.
99 Arthur R.M. Lower. 1973. Great Britain’s Woodyard : British America and the Timber Trade, 1763 to
1867. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
100 This is for a cord which stands at four feet high, four feet deep and eight feet long (128 cubic feet).
According to Gilles Paquet and Jean-Pierre Wallot (1998. “Some Price Indexes for Quebec and
Montréal (1760-1913)”, Histoire Sociale / Social History, vol.31, no.62, p.311) , the common cord of
firewood in Quebec was of dimensions of six feet high, four feet deep and two feet long (48 cubic
feet). This means that the Quebec cord of firewood was only 37.5% that of the one for this measured.
This paper has adjusted the values appropriately. To make the adjustments, I computed the price of
firewood per cubic feet, and then I adjusted this measurement to make it so that the cord has a
volume of 128 cubic feet and then divided by the BTUs for each type of firewood. The amount of
MBTU per type of wood was derived thanks to the computations made available on the website of
https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm (consulted November 4th 2014).
98
28
were typically composed of six individuals. This means that 3.33 cords (in French
measure) were consumed per person at the very least – much more than what Allen
et al. attribute (see table 4 for calculations). This adjustment is crucial in attempts to
compare New France and France together, and also to compare New England with
other societies other than New France. Given the geographic and climatic similarities
between New England and New France, it is not surprising to find that the American
colonists consumed firewood in similar quantities as the inhabitants of the French
colonies to the north. Indeed, Robert Gordon identified colonial households in Boston
as requiring 30 cords of firewood per year in terms of consumption. 101 Thomas
Purvis echoes this measurement adding that “about 80% of all warmth generated
was wasted” due to open air chimneys.102 Even by the mid-19th century when
fireplaces became more efficient, the consumption in New England remained high at
between 10 and 20 cords of firewood.103 In his own work, Arthur Cole also confirms
a high consumption of firewood similar to that of New France pointing out that
students at Harvard and Princeton in the early 19th century were allotted 3 cords of
firewood each.104
Table 4: MBTU produced for fuel consumption reported in literature
Cubic feet per cord MBTU provided MBTU provided by
(each French cord by
French French measure if
was 48 cubic feet)
measure
if white oak
Canadian pine
3.33 cords per year 159.84
18.482 MBTU
30.219 MBTU
per
person
(20
cords divided by six
household
members)
4.17 cords per year 200.16
23.145 MBTU
37.842 MBTU
(25 cords divided by
six
household
members)
Note: The estimates of energy provided by different types of wood I used allow for a degree of
humidity in the wood which reduces the energy output. They also consider a less than perfect
combustion where a sizeable energy output it wasted by poor extraction capacity. The source I used
computes that only 71% of total energy available when wood contains 0% moisture and is combusted
in a pure oxygen environment is extracted. The amount of MBTU per type of wood was derived
Robert Gordon. 2005. “Technology in Colonial North America” in A Companion to American
Technology eds. Carroll Pursell, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, p.25.
102 Thomas L. Purvis. 1999. Almanacs of American Life : Colonial America to 1763. New York, NY:
Facts on File, p.10.
103 Gordon Whitney. 1996. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain: A History of Environmental
Change in Temperate North America from 1500 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, p.210.
104 Arthur H. Cole. 1970. “The Mystery of Fuel Wood Marketing in the United States”, Business History
Review, Vol.44, No.3, p.340.
101
29
thanks
to
the
computations
made
available
on
the
https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm (consulted November 4th 2014).
website
of
Hence, I have quintupled the per person consumption of firewood to 10 million BTU.
This is closer to the estimates provided by the literature, but it is markedly lower to
reflect a certain level of scarcity. As for the basket that excludes candles and lamp
oil, I have attributed 20 MBTU to compensate for the elimination. In the respectable
basket, I increased that quantity to 25 MBTU. Table 5 illustrates the different bare
bones baskets while table 6 illustrates the Allen respectability basket in comparison
with ours. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the resulting baskets with the respectability
baskets on the right axis.
Table 5: Bare bones basket (1688 to 1740)
Allen,
Bare
Bare
Bare
Murphy
bones
bones
bones
and
basket 1a basket 2a basket 3a
Schneider and 1b
and 2b
and 3b
Maize
165 Kg
Oats
153.96 Kg
153.96 Kg
Wheat
169.96 Kg
Peas
20 Kg
20 Kg
20 Kg
20 Kg
Meat
5 Kg
5 Kg
5 Kg
5 Kg
Butter
3 Kg
3 Kg
3 Kg
3 Kg
Soap
1.3 Kg
1.3 Kg
1.3 Kg
1.3 Kg
Cloth
3 meters
3 meters
3 meters
3 meters
Candles
1.3 Kg
1.3 Kg
1.3 Kg
Lamp oil
1.3 liters
1.3 liters
1.3 liters
Fuel
2 MBTU
15 MBTU 15 MBTU 20 MBTU
Note: Some readers might find strange that wheat, a more expensive item per calorie yielded, is only
a few kilograms more to provide the same 1655 calories proposed by Allen, Murphy and Schneider.
The reason for this difference is that the physical weight of a minot of oats was 34 pounds while a
minot of wheat weighed 60 pounds. But a minot of wheat yielded 96,728 calories and one of oats
yielded 60,509 calories. These statistics come are found in Christian Dessureault. 2005. "L'évolution
de la productivité agricole dans la plaine de Montréal, 1852-1871: grandes et petites exploitations
dans un système familial d'agriculture." Social History/Histoire Sociale, vol.38, no.76, p.265
Table 6: Respectability baskets (1688 to 1740)
Allen
Respectable Basket
1a and 1b
Bread (wheat)
234 kg
201.35 kg
Beans (peas)
52 l
39.45 kg
Meat (beef)
26 kg
26 kg
Butter
5.2 kg
10.4 kg
Cheese
5.2 kg
Eggs
52 eggs
52 eggs
Wine
68.25 l
Beer
182 l
Soap
2.6 kg
2.6 kg
Linen
5m
5m
Candles
2.6 kg
2.6 kg
Lamp oil
2.6 l
2.6 l
30
Fuel
5.0 MBTU
25 MBTU
.Note: In his work, Robert Allen replaced beer by 68.25 liters of wine. Robert C. Allen. 2009. The
British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University, p.36. Note 1:
Baskets 2a and 2b will simply be multiplied by 3.99 to include the premium of 5% per adult-equivalent
in rent and the two additional children at 50% of the consumption of adults. Note 2: If households
used only pine as firewood, the 3.33 cords per person would have provided 18.48 MBTU per person
and if it was white oak, 30.22 MBTU would have been provided per person. I chose 25 MBTU
because it was roughly between these two possibilities. Note 3 : Using the Dessureault (Christian
Dessureault. 2005. "L'évolution de la productivité agricole dans la plaine de Montréal, 1852-1871:
grandes et petites exploitations dans un système familial d'agriculture." Social History/Histoire
Sociale, vol.38, no.76, p.265) statistics for calorie per type of grains in Canada, I obtained 161.34 kg if
all the calories from wheat were captured. However, since François Rousseau reports that 24.8% of a
minot was lost in processing from wheat to flour. Hence I boosted the 161.34 kg by 24.8% for the
losses incurred in processing (François Rousseau. 1983. L’œuvre de Chère en Nouvelle-France : Le
régime des malades à l’hôtel-Dieu de Québec. Québec Presses de l’Université Laval, p.395).
Figure 14: Baskets with white oak as source of fuel, respectable basket on the rightaxis
450
1600
400
1400
350
1200
300
1000
Bare bones 1a
250
800
200
600
150
Bare bones 2a
Bare bones 3a
Respectable 1a
400
100
200
50
0
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
0
Figure 15: Baskets with pine as source of fuel, respectable basket on the right-axis
31
450
2000
400
1800
350
1600
1400
300
1200
250
Bare bones 2b
800
Bare bones 3b
600
Respectable 1b
200
150
100
400
50
200
0
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
0
Bare bones 1b
1000
As one can see from figures 14 and 15, the importance given to the type of wood
has an effect that increases the price of the respectability basket by 4.2% and the
bare bones basket by 8.2% over the period from 1688 to 1740. Shifting between
different forms of fuels thus seems to have an impact. However, shifting from one
type of fuel to another does not seem to have any impact on the trend and direction
of the costs of the baskets. Hence, the difference is mostly at a steady level.
Between the different bare bones basket, those which had oats as the primary
source of calories rather than wheat were 15.3% cheaper over the period from 1688
to 1740. However, the difference is steady – not a surprising observation given the
relatively stable relation between oats and wheat prices displayed in figure 35.
Finally, if households were to abandon candles and lamp oil and substituting them by
firewood, the result is also not dramatically changed: over the entire period of 1688
to 1740, the basket without oil and candles is only 3% cheaper than the one that
includes them. Overall, the bare bones baskets are resistant to very large
specification change. Changing the types of goods used, the type of firewood and
the amount of firewood does not seem to generate any substantial impacts on the
movements and prices of the baskets.
However, the respectability baskets are a different matter. In the bare bones basket,
only lamp oil, soap and cloth tended to be import products. In the respectability
basket, there are more imported goods namely wine and all other imported products
are found in greater quantity. The cost component of the total basket that comes
from imported products is thusly quite important. One way to illustrate the importance
of this point is to take the share of the total cost of the bare bones (1a) and
respectability basket (1a) that was represented by expenditures on goods produced
within the colony. The idea is that the difference between those two shares will
illustrate how expensive it was to acquire the respectability basket given that it
required more imports in order to be achieved. Figure 16 illustrates this result and as
we can see, the total share of costs that stems from domestic goods is very often
below 50% in the case of the respectability basket but rarely below 60% in the case
of the bare bones basket. This hints at a first suggestion, on which we will elaborate
later in section 7, by which the inhabitants of New France did not find very hard to
meet basic needs which relied on domestically produced goods, but that increasing
32
consumption into the realm of imported goods was very expensive. This observation
will be crucial into any attempt to compare the inhabitants of New France with those
of France.
Figure 16: Share of the total costs of baskets that come from domestically produced
goods
90%
80%
70%
60%
Bare bones domestic
share
50%
40%
Respectability
domestic share
30%
20%
10%
1688
1692
1696
1700
1704
1708
1712
1716
1720
1724
1728
1732
1736
1740
0%
Finally, before we move on to section 6 it is necessary to mention that in order to
extend comparisons of economic performance over time, another set of baskets
must be constructed. Two key elements, cloth and candles, are only available
sporadically and prevents us from establishing a welfare basket which includes those
items. To minimize this problem, I have decided to create bare bones basket 1a and
1b as well as respectability basket 1a and 1b only that I have eliminated candles
altogether and assumed that cloth followed the same price behaviour as imported
shoes. Figure 17 illustrates how the price index (1688=100) for French shoes
evolves relative to imported cloth. They evolve very closely together thereby
justifying that indexing nominal prices of cloth to the price of shoes will provide a
reasonable approximation. I fully understand that this is not optimal, but it does
provide us with information necessary to obtain an image of what happened to living
standards in Quebec in the 20 years from 1740 to 1760 in which all but 5 full years
were marked by disastrous warfare (the siege of Louisbourg, the Acadian upheaval,
the Conquest).
Figure 17: Price of French shoes and cloth (1688=100)
33
600
500
400
300
French shoes
Cloth
200
100
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
1742
1745
1748
1751
1754
1757
1760
0
Section 6: Welfare ratios New France over time
Combining the basket created in section 5 with the wages described in section 3, we
can produce welfare ratios for New France at the time. Normally, some would tend
to create figures of average wages by weighing the different observed wage rates by
the occupational structure of the population.105 However, the detailed censuses of
occupations in New France do not allow making inferences that would be reliable
with regards to the occupational structure. Consequently, we are forced to
concentrate on unskilled workers. But this is not a costly problem since the vast
majority of the population was unskilled. Moreover, as pointed out above, there were
important scarcities of skilled workers in New France. Additionally, these are the
wage rates used by Allen and his coauthors in their comparison of living standards in
the Americas during the colonial era.106 However, we will also present welfare ratios
for the skilled workers like carpenters. The first test is to measure how living
standards evolved over time in the colony of New France. The first approach used to
compute the welfare ratio is merely to multiply the wage rate by 250 days and then
dividing this by the cost of the two different baskets. Whenever the result of such a
computation is above one, it means that at 250 days of work per year, the worker is
able to acquire the full basket specified and has some income left to spend on other
goods and services. Likewise, if the result is below one, the worker is unable at 250
days of work per year, to acquire such a basket. This first measure, seen in figure
18, will be used below as the first comparison of living standards across the
Americas but it is mostly important to evaluate Quebec’s economic performance over
time. As one can see, the level observed with regards to the bare bones basket is
generally high (above one except in two years over the period). However, the level
with regards to the respectability is much lower. Both these measures of welfare
exhibit no steady improvement throughout the period. On the other hand, figure 19
shows that this stagnation was not shared amongst the overall population. Skilled
Tomas Cvrcek. 2013. “Wages, Prices and Living Standards in the Habsburg Empire, 1827-1910”,
Journal of Economic History, Vol. 73, No.1, p.22.
106 Robert C. Allen, Tommy E. Murphy and Eric B. Schneider. 2012. “The Colonial Origins of the
Divergence in the Americas: A Labor Market Approach”, Journal of Economic History, Vol.72, No.4,
pp.868.
105
34
workers, approximated by carpenters’ wages, had higher welfare ratios but they
were also slightly increasing overtime. Figure 20 shows that past 1740, the living
standards of unskilled workers are declining. Figure 21 shows the same thing but for
carpenters. These latter two figures should be understood as extending our idea of
living standards in the unstable period of 1740 to 1760. As one can see, living
standards did not increase significantly – they remained at their plateau. However,
there was a large collapse in the two wars that marked the two decades prior to the
Conquest. Moreover, readers should observe that regardless of the basket
assumption selected, the results are very similar. This reinforces the earlier claim
that alternative specifications will not alter the results in any meaningful way.
Figure 18: Welfare ratios at 250 days per year with both baskets (unskilled workers)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Unskilled Basket 1a
2.5
Unskilled Basket 1b
2
Unskilled respectability 1a
1.5
Unskilled respectability 1b
1
0.5
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
0
Figure 19: Welfare ratios at 250 days per year with both baskets (carpenters)
35
9
8
7
6
Carpenter Basket 1a
5
Carpenter Basket 1b
4
3
Carpenter respectability
1a
2
Carpenter respectability
1b
1
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
0
Figure 20: Welfare ratios at 250 days per year with both baskets (unskilled workers)
using the limited basket (no candles; cloth interpolated)
6
5
Unskilled basket 1a limted
4
Unskilled basket 1b limted
3
Unskilled respectability 1a
limited
2
Unskilled respectability 1b
limited
1
1688
1692
1696
1700
1704
1708
1712
1716
1720
1724
1728
1732
1736
1740
1744
1748
1752
1756
1760
0
Figure 21: Welfare ratios at 250 days per year with both baskets (carpenters) using
the limited basket (no candles; cloth interpolated)
36
10
9
8
7
Carpenter basket 1a
limted
6
5
Carpenter basket 1b
limted
4
Carpenter respectability
1a limited
3
Carpenter respectability
1b limited
2
1
1688
1692
1696
1700
1704
1708
1712
1716
1720
1724
1728
1732
1736
1740
1744
1748
1752
1756
1760
0
Section 7: Comparing welfare ratios from 1688 to 1760
The first step of our comparisons is to use the data made available by Robert Allen
for Paris for the period of our interest.107 Benchmarking the living standards of the
inhabitants of New France against living standards in Paris is probably biasing the
comparison against New France as Philip Hoffman has documented how the Paris
basin was one of the most dynamic economic regions of France during the 18th
century.108 It is generally admitted that the inhabitants of France had a low standard
of living during the 18th century. Robert Allen put the welfare ratios of building
laborers, using a basket between the bare bones and respectable baskets, at 0.8 in
1700-49 (read: a laborer’s work year could buy him 80% of the respectable basket of
goods) well below the level enjoyed in London.109 Jacob Weisdorf and Paul Sharp
also point to a similar conclusion with regards to the standing of France relative to
Britain.110 It is important to note that while it is normal to multiply total expenditures
by 5% to add the importance of rent in total expenditures, rent was a rare
phenomenon in New France as most households owned their own houses in rural
areas and the sole expenditure related to housing were for maintenance, light and
fuel. Although I did include it in the creation of the basket, this likely plays against
the relative position of New France to France. Tables 7 and 8 show the resulting
baskets for comparisons. Tables 9 and 10 present the resulting welfare ratios.
Table 7: Comparison of bare bones basket for New France and France (1688 to
1760)
Bare bones Bare
bones Bare
bones Bare
bones
basket
1a basket 1a and basket (full only basket (limited –
107
The data is available online on the website of Robert Allen :
http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/Allen/SiteAssets/Lists/Biography%20Sections/EditForm/Lab
ourers.xls.xls
108 Philip Hoffman. 1996. Growth in a Traditional Society: The French Countryside, 1450-1815.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
109 Robert C.Allen. 2001. “The great divergence in European wages and prices from the Middle Ages
to the First World War” Explorations in economic history, Vol.38, No.4, pp.428.
110 Paul Sharp and Jacob Weisdorf. 2012. “French revolution or industrial revolution? A note on the
constrating experiences of England and France up to 1800”, Cliometrica, Vol.6, No.1, pp.79-88.
37
Oats
Peas
Meat
Butter
Soap
Cloth
Candles
Lamp oil
Fuel
and 1b for
New France
(full – only
until 1740)
153.96 Kg
20 Kg
5 Kg
3 Kg
1.3 Kg
3 meters
1.3 Kg
1.3 liters
15 MBTU
1b
for
New until 1740) for goes to 1760)
France (limited France
for France
– goes to 1760)
153.96 Kg
20 Kg
5 Kg
3 Kg
1.3 Kg
3 meters
1.3 liters
15 MBTU
153.96 Kg
20 Kg
5 Kg
3 Kg
1.3 Kg
3 meters
1.3 Kg
1.3 liters
2 MBTU
153.96 Kg
20 Kg
5 Kg
3 Kg
1.3 Kg
3 meters
1.3 liters
2 MBTU
Note: In Allen’s dataset, oats for Paris is missing observations between 1700 and 1704; I have merely
imputed the average values for 1699 and 1705. Additionally, observations were also noted in setiers
which had to be converted in Kg. As for peas, there were also problems of missing data, I opted for a
similar method as for oats but the gaps in data were much greater. Hence, the periods from 1696 to
1701 and from 1703 to 1728 provided non-moving datapoints.
Table 8: Comparison of respectability basket for New France and
1760)
Respectability
Respectability Respectability
Basket for France
Basket for
basket 1a
(full – only until
France
and 1b for
1740)
(limited –
New France
goes to 1760)
(full – only
until 1740)
Bread
201.35 kg
201.35 kg
201.35 kg
(wheat)
Beans
39.45 kg
39.45 kg
39.45 kg
(peas)
Meat
26 kg
26 kg
26 kg
(beef)
Butter
5.2 kg
5.2 kg
10.4 kg
Cheese
5.2 kg
5.2 kg
Eggs
52 eggs
52 eggs
52 eggs
Wine
68.25 l
68.25 l
68.25 l
Soap
2.6 kg
2.6 kg
2.6 kg
Linen
5m
5m
5m
Candles
2.6 kg
2.6 kg
Lamp oil
2.6 l
2.6 l
2.6 l
Fuel
5.0 MBTU
5.0 MBTU
25 MBTU
France (1688 to
Respectability
basket 1a and
1b for New
France (limited
– goes to 1760)
201.35 kg
39.45 kg
26 kg
10.4 kg
52 eggs
68.25 l
2.6 kg
5m
2.6 l
25 MBTU
Table 9: Welfare ratios in France and New France (bare bones basket 1b with Paris
representing France) for unskilled workers
France
New
Ratio
France
New France
Ratio
(Full)
France
NF/F
(Limited)
(Limited)
NF/F
(Full)
1688-1698
2.20
2.58
117.3%
2.27
2.70
118.9%
38
1699-1708
1709-1718
1719-1728
1729-1740
1688-1740
1741-1750
1751-1760
1740-1760
1688-1760
2.29
2.23
1.76
1.72
2.03
-
2.67
2.48
2.76
2.72
2.60
-
116.6%
111.2%
157.2%
158.6%
128.3%
-
2.37
2.30
1.81
1.79
2.10
1.94
1.80
1.87
2.04
2.81
2.63
2.97
2.86
2.76
2.56
2.09
2.32
2.64
118.5%
114.1%
163.8%
160.1%
131.5%
131.8%
115.8%
124.1%
129.6%
Note : For the wage dataset, I have relied on Philip Hoffman’s dataset - Available online at the Global
Price and Income History Group, Paris 1380-1870, http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/Datafilelist.htm. Note: I
have also produced this basket, in an attempt to do sensitivity analysis, with basket 1a (relying on
White Oak), the overall conclusion is still the same. From 1688 to 1740, the NF/F ratio for the full
basket is 139.5%. For 1688 to 1740 with the limited basket, it is 143.6% and for 1688 to 1760, it is
143.4%. Consequently, this table should be read as saying: at the very least, the inhabitants of New
France were 29% richer from 1688 to 1760. At the very best, they were 43.4% richer. Readers
should also remember that I am attributing a considerably larger fuel requirement for New France
than for France. Any reduction in this requirement would widen New France’s lead over France
considerably.
Table 10: Welfare ratios in France and New France (Respectability basket 1b with
Paris representing France) for unskilled workers
France
(Full)
1688-1698
1699-1708
1709-1718
1719-1728
1729-1740
1688-1740
1741-1750
1751-1760
1740-1760
1688-1760
0.82
1.02
0.95
0.73
0.72
0.84
-
New
France
(Full)
0.88
0.87
0.77
0.84
0.91
0.82
-
Ratio
NF/F
France
(Limited)
New France
(Limited)
Ratio
NF/F
107.2%
85%
79.8%
115.8%
126.9%
96.9%
-
0.84
1.06
0.98
0.75
0.74
0.87
0.82
0.80
0.81
0.85
0.91
0.90
0.79
0.88
0.94
0.85
0.81
0.78
0.80
0.83
107.9%
85.1%
80.2%
117.9%
126.8%
97.5%
99%
96.7%
97.9%
97.6%
Note: I have also produced this basket, in an attempt to do sensitivity analysis, with respectability
basket 1a (relying on White Oak), the overall conclusion is still the same. From 1688 to 1740, the
NF/F ratio for the full basket is 99.8%. For 1688 to 1740 with the limited basket, it is 100.6% and for
1688 to 1760, it is 101.6%. Consequently, this table should be read as saying: at the very least, the
inhabitants of New France were 4% poorer richer from 1688 to 1760. At the very best, they were 1.6%
richer. Readers should also remember that I am attributing a considerably larger fuel requirement for
New France than for France. Any reduction in this requirement would lead to an important
appreciation of New France’s position relative to France.
The results seen in tables 9 and 10 tell us that the inhabitants of New France were
very well able to meet their basic needs than the inhabitants of France. The
differences in welfare ratios at the bare bones level of subsistence are stark and very
clearly in favour of New France. Not only that, the advantage it possessed over
France does not seem to evaporate over time. However, if it was easy to achieve a
39
basic level of living standards, going further was harder relative to France. This can
be seen in table 18 where the welfare ratios at the respectability level are presented.
As can be seen, the inhabitants of New France have a much smaller edge over their
counterpart in France and only in some period. Overall, the inhabitants of France
seem much more at ease in terms of acquiring items like wine, cloth and soap. This
will be the subject of further elaboration later in this section. Skilled workers in New
France also enjoyed a considerable edge over their counterparts in France with
regards to the bare bones basket (table 11). That edge was substantially larger
(51%) over the period from 1688 to 1760 than it was for unskilled workers (29%).
However, like it was with the case with the “respectability basket” for unskilled
workers, the gap is much smaller between France and New France for skilled
workers when it comes to comparing respectable living standards (table 12). At the
very least, the gap between France and New France was roughly 11% (relying on
the assumption that Canadian pine was the firewood used) and at the very best, it
was 17% (if we rely on the assumption that White oak was the firewood used). To
test for sensitivity, I reduced the fuel requirement in all the baskets (from 15 to 5
MBTU in the bare bones baskets and from 25 to 15 MBTU in the respectable
basket). By reducing the fuel standard to these levels for bare bones basket 1b, the
27% gap in favor of Canadian unskilled workers jumps to 49.4% while the gap for
skilled workers jumps from 49.7% to 74.9%. However, these adjustments do not
have any large effects on the respectability basket 1b. Indeed, the respectable
welfare ratio of French-Canadians unskilled workers stood at 95% of the level
observed in France before changes in fuel requirements and stood at 99.98% after
the changes. The basic observation that achieving a basic level of living standards
was easy but that achieving a more respectable living standard was more arduous
thus seems resistant to specification changes.
Table 11: Welfare ratios in France and New France (Bare bones basket 1b with
Paris representing France) for skilled workers
France
New
Ratio
France
New France
Ratio
(Full)
France
NF/F
(Limited)
(Limited)
NF/F
(Full)
1688-1698
3.95
4.88
123.3%
4.09
5.11
124.9%
1699-1708
3.30
4.63
140.5%
3.41
4.87
142.9%
1709-1718
3.88
4.69
120.7%
4.01
4.97
123.9%
1719-1728
3.17
5.61
176.8%
3.28
6.04
184.2%
1729-1740
2.90
5.80
199.7%
3.02
6.09
201.6%
1688-1740
3.43
5.16
150.3%
3.55
5.47
154.1%
40
1741-1750
1751-1760
1740-1760
1688-1760
-
-
-
3.21
3.12
3.17
3.45
4.13
5.11
4.62
5.24
128.7%
163.8%
146%
152%
Note: I have also produced this basket, in an attempt to do sensitivity analysis, with respectability
basket 1a (relying on White Oak), the overall conclusion is still the same. From 1688 to 1740, the
NF/F ratio for the full basket is 163.3%. For 1688 to 1740 with the limited basket, it is 168.3% and for
1688 to 1760, it is 168.2%. Consequently, this table should be read as saying: at the very least, the
inhabitants of New France were 51.4% poorer richer from 1688 to 1760. At the very best, they were
68.2% richer. Readers should also remember that I am attributing a considerably larger fuel
requirement for New France than for France. Any reduction in this requirement would lead to an
important appreciation of New France’s position relative to France. The skilled workers are
represented by carpenters.
Table 12: Welfare ratios in France and New France (Respectability basket 1b with
Paris representing France) for skilled workers
France
New
Ratio
France
New France
Ratio
(Full)
France
NF/F
(Limited)
(Limited)
NF/F
(Full)
1688-1698
1.47
1.66
112.6%
1.51
1.71
113.4%
1699-1708
1.47
1.52
102.8%
1.52
1.57
103%
1709-1718
1.66
1.42
85.6%
1.70
1.47
86.1%
1719-1728
1.31
1.72
131.3%
1.35
1.80
133.6%
1729-1740
1.22
1.94
159.3%
1.26
2.00
159.2%
1688-1740
1.42
1.61
113.6%
1.46
1.67
114.3%
1741-1750
1.36
1.33
97.4%
1751-1760
1.40
1.92
137.6%
1740-1760
1.38
1.62
117.7%
1688-1760
1.44
1.66
115.2%
Note: In New France, the skilled workers are still being represented by the carpenters. However, for
Paris, I have relied on Robert Allen’s series for masons. I have also produced this basket, in an
attempt to do sensitivity analysis, with respectability basket 1a (relying on White Oak), the overall
conclusion is still the same. From 1688 to 1740, the NF/F ratio for the full basket is 17%. For 1688 to
1740 with the limited basket, it is 18% and for 1688 to 1760, it is 20%. Consequently, this table
should be read as saying: at the very least, the inhabitants of New France were 11% poorer richer
from 1688 to 1760. At the very best, they were 17 % richer. Readers should also remember that I am
attributing a considerably larger fuel requirement for New France than for France. Any reduction in
this requirement would lead to an important appreciation of New France’s position relative to France.
The skilled workers are represented by carpenters.
The gap between France and New France is likely appreciably larger than those
presented in tables 9 and 10. One of the main reasons for this refers to our
discussion in section 4.4 of the current thesis: the families of New France were
appreciably larger than they were in France – roughly six members per household.
By comparison, Jean-Louis Flandrin reports that the average French household had
5.05 members 111 Its worth noting that this difference in family size is inexistent
between New France and New England as families in both areas were roughly
111
Jean-Louis Flandrin. 1979. Family in Former Times: Kinship, Household and Sexuality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 55.
41
similar in size.112 The reason that these differences would increase the lead of New
France relative to France is that economies of scale in heating and fuel would have
meant that the total costs of the basket of goods would have proportionally less than
the size of the household. Moreover, this would likely have been compensated by
the ability of older children to contribute to family income and hence increase
incomes more than the cost of the basket. Finally, it is also of importance to
highlight the key point of the tables above: each day of work yielded larger quantities
of domestically produced goods (see figure 22 and 23 for wheat and firewood as
examples) than in France but fewer imported goods like wine (figure 24) or cloth
(figure 25).
Figure 22: Quantity of wheat (kg) that could be purchased with one day’s work in
Paris and Quebec.
18.5
16.5
14.5
12.5
10.5
8.5
Paris
Quebec
6.5
4.5
Figure 23: Quantity of firewood (MBTU) that could be purchased with one day’s
work in Paris and Quebec.
112
Ibid, p.55.
42
Figure 24: Quantity of wine (liters) that could be purchased with one day’s work in
Paris and Quebec.
7
6
5
4
3
Paris
Quebec
2
1
0
Figure 25: Quantity of cloth (meters) that could be purchased with one day’s work in
Paris and Quebec.
43
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Paris
0.8
Quebec
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1688-1700
1701-1709
1710-1719
1720-1729
1730-1740
The comparisons with the American colonies are less flattering for New France than
the comparison with France. Using the same bare bones basket as Allen and his coauthors shows that New France had bare bones living standards lagging slightly
behind those experienced in Boston but were markedly below those observed in
Philadelphia. 113 These regions are easily comparable, especially Boston and
Quebec given the similar climate. There are no reasons to find large differences in
diets and calories consumption. For example, John Komlos has found that slaves in
colonial America consumed roughly 2800 calories per day – a “low intake by
subsequent standards reached in America”.114 Sarah McMahon on the other hand
used wills to see the average food allowance provided to widows and found
estimates ranging between 2386 and 2831 calories per day between the periods of
1654-1698 to 1740-1759.115 James Lemon reports that Pennsylvania between 1740
and 1790, the daily intake stood at 2877 calories. 116 These reports are very similar to
the ones discussed above for New France. Additionally, firewood consumption is
also similar in terms of cords burnt per year. Moreover, it should be pointed out that
Allen et al. designed their basket to make it comparable across societies in the
Americas. Using their basket seems warranted. The results can be seen in table 13.
However, readers should be aware that when Allen et al. relied on Gloria Main’s
work for wages in New England, they unexplainably used the wage rates for farm
boys. I thought it was preferable, in order to make Quebec, Boston and Philadelphia
as comparable as possible, to use the adult wage rates reported by Main.
The wage rates for New England come from Gloria Main. 1994. “Gender, Work and Wages in
Colonial New England”, William & Mary Quarterly, Vol.51, No.1, p. 48. The wage rates for
Philadelphia come from Gary B. Nash. 1979. Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political
Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, p.392-394. As for the bare bones baskets, they are available online – see: Robert Allen. 2013.
Allen subsistence bundle costs, colonial America versus England, as of 2013. Available online at
http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Allen_colonial_CPIs_Am_vs_Eng_2013.xlsx).
114 John Komlos. 1994. “The height of Runaway Slaves in Colonial America” in Stature, Living
Standards and Economic Development: Essays in Anthropometric history eds. John Komlos,
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, pp. 93-116.
115 Sarah McMahon. 1985. “A comfortable subsistence: the changing composition of diet in Rural New
England”, William & Mary Quarterly, Vol. 42, No.1, pp.26-65.
116 James Lemon. 1972. The Best Poor Man’s Country: a Geographical Study of Early Southeastern
Pennsylvania. Washington D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.155.
113
44
Table 13: Welfare ratios in Boston, Philadelphia and New France (bare bones
basket 1b) for unskilled workers
1688-1698
1699-1708
1709-1718
1719-1728
1729-1740
1688-1740
1741-1750
1751-1760
1740-1760
1688-1698
1699-1708
1709-1718
1719-1728
1729-1740
1688-1740
1741-1750
1751-1760
1740-1760
Boston
Philadelphia
3.69
3.80
3.27
3.94
3.87
3.72
3.73
3.36
3.60
Ratio NF
Full/Bosto
n
81.6%
91.6%
75.7%
85.6%
94.4%
86.4%
-
5.14
5.06
5.09
4.58
5.44
5.03
Ratio NF
Full/Philadelphi
a
65.6%
72.1%
63%
-
New France
(Full)
3.01
3.48
2.48
3.37
3.65
3.21
Ratio NF
Limited/Bosto
n
97.4%
90.5%
96.5%
New France
(Limited)
3.64
3.04
3.47
Ratio NF
Limited/Philadelphi
a
79.4%
55.8%
69%
Note: To make the baskets comparable, I had to revert to 2 MBTU per basket in the case of New
France since the original data advanced by Allen et al. is not available. Regardless, this would not
have changed the results given that if the harsh winters of Quebec required an increase in the fuel
consumption standard, Boston would have required similar upward adjustments. As for Philadelphia,
the lead it enjoyed over Quebec would probably be widened if we were to compensate for the
differential in consumption in the two regions (Quebec requiring a much larger increase than
Philadelphia). Readers should also note that shifting between basket 1a and basket 1b (assuming
that the firewood consumption was composed white oak rather than pine) does not alter the gap in
any significant way.
As one can see, Quebec is poorer in terms of the bare bones basket of goods in
comparison to the main British colonies of interest in North America at the time (the
most interesting one is Boston as it is meant to represent New England which shares
the greatest similarities with New France). However, the gap with New England is
relatively small and is thus very sensitive to specification changes. One way to see
this is to look at the grain-wage – the amount of grains that daily wages could buy.117
Figure 26 below shows that the inhabitants of New France were able to acquire
quantities of wheat roughly equivalent to those observed in Philadelphia and Boston.
This approach is used notably by Stephen Broadberry and Bishnupriya Gupta. 2006. “The Early
Modern Great Divergence : Wages, Prices and Economic Development in Europe and Asia”,
Economic History Review, Vol. 59, no.1, pp.2-31.
117
45
Figure 26 reinforces this author’s belief that the bare bones basket is a necessary
but not a sufficient indicator of living standards across the Americas.
Figure 26: Kg of wheat that could be purchased with one day’s wages in Boston,
New France and Philadelphia.
30
25
20
Boston
15
New France
Philadelphia
10
5
1740
1739
1738
1737
1736
1735
1734
1733
1732
1731
1730
1729
1728
1727
1726
1725
1724
1723
1722
1721
0
If we concentrate on imported and manufactured goods, we can see that there is an
appreciable gap in living standards between Quebec and Boston and an even larger
gap between Quebec and Philadelphia. The method used to observe this gap
consists of dividing wages by the price per unit of different goods which are
manufactured. With regards to the gap between Boston and Quebec, I have used
price data collected in the work of William B. Weedon.118 In his late 19th century
work, Weedon assembled a dataset of scattered prices – most of which are not
continuous – that can be combined with Gloria Main’s wage data 119 to collect the
time needed to buy these commodities. In the case of Philadelphia, the wages will be
derived from the work of Gary Nash120 and combined with the price data of
Pennsylvania prices available at the Global Price and Income History Group. 121 The
key commodities of interest are similar to those used in the case of France and need
to be internationally traded or be the result of the non-agricultural sector within the
colonies. Amongst these commodities are rum, sugar, salt, tobacco, cloth and
codfish.
These have been selected for the reason that they were either imported into the
colonies or were produced within the colony and tended to be exported on foreign
markets. This implies that prices for these internationally traded goods would have
118
William Babcock Weedon. 1890 [2011]. Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789.
London: British Library Historical Print Editions, pp. 887-903.
119 Gloria Main. 1994. “Gender, Work and Wages in Colonial New England”, William & Mary Quarterly,
Vol.51, No.1, p. 48.
120 Gary B. Nash. 1979. Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of
the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p.392-394. Note: The value of
1727 was used as wages for all years from 1720 to 1726. All other gaps were interpolated using the
average of the two closest years between which the missing years were situated.
121 Available online at the Global Price and Income History Group, Pennsylvania spliced series, 17201896, http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/Datafilelist.htm
46
been roughly similar while non-traded goods would have had lower prices in less
productive economies (this discussion will be expanded upon later in my thesis).122
Rum and sugar, in both the American colonies and in Canada, tended to be imported
from the Caribbean region.123 Salt tended to be an imported good as well, especially
in the case of New France where it was required both for food conservation but also
as an input for the production of salted cod to be exported in France.124 Cloth also
tended to be imported, although households could fabricate clothing with flax and
wool.
As for tobacco and codfish, these were products whose supply would have
depended on productivity elsewhere in the economy. All of these items, unlike rum,
sugar and salt, could be produced locally. However, their production required
sacrifices in terms of production elsewhere – namely agriculture – thanks to the
reallocation of factor inputs. Output of these sectors would have depended in large
part upon productivity improvement in other agriculture. If labor and capital employed
in agriculture became more productive, this would have liberated resources for
exports-oriented industries.125 Tobacco was produced locally in both New France
and in the mid-Atlantic colonies, but in the latter case it was an export product as
well as a locally consumed product. The inhabitants of New France, although
production in the 1734 census reached 4.4 pounds per capita126, did not export
tobacco elsewhere. With regards to codfish, New France did develop an export
industry in that area but it was nowhere as large and extensive as that developed in
the Northern American colonies.127
For all of these products, the wages of New France commanded very little quantities
compared with the quantities observed in Boston and Philadelphia. Figure 27
illustrates how many liters could be acquired in all years when Boston yielded price
observations for rum. While the inhabitants of Philadelphia and Boston were able to
acquire roughly similar quantities of rum at the level of wages observed, the
inhabitants of New France lagged considerably behind up to 1747. If we expand, in
figure 28, to continuous comparisons between Philadelphia and New France, we can
see that this reality extends up to 1760. Figure 29 confirms this judgement with
regards to sugar, but only with Philadelphia. It is hard to obtain a reliable image of
sugar prices in Boston because William Weedon did not specify clearly if he was
reported prices of brown or white sugar, whose prices were considerably different.
Consequently, it is hard for us to compare New France with New England for sugar.
Bela Balassa. 1964. “The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 72, no.6, pp.584-596.
123 John J. McCusker. 1970. “The Rum Trade and the Balance of Payments of the Thirteen
Continental Colonies”, Journal of Economic Histoy, Vol.30, No.1, pp.244-247; Jacques Mathieu. 1972.
“La balance commercial : Nouvelle-France – Antilles au XVIIIe siècle”, Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique
française, Vol.25, no.4, pp.465-497.
124 Bernard Audet. 2001. Se Nourrir au Quotidien en Nouvelle-France. Sainte-Foy : Les Éditions GID.
125 This supply-side view is best expounded in the work of Morris Altman. 2003. “Staple theory and
export-led growth: constructing differential growth”, Australian Economic History Review, Vol.43,
No.3, pp.230-255 and in the work of Irving Kravis. 1970. "Trade as a handmaiden of growth:
Similarities between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." Economic Journal, Vol.80, no.323,
pp.850-872.
126 Department of Agriculture of Canada. 1874. Censuses of Canada, 1665 to 1871, Vol. 4. Ottawa:
Department of Agriculture, p.57.
127 James Lydon. 2008. Fish and Flour for Gold, 1600-1800: Southern Europe in the Colonial Balance
of Payments. Philadelphia, PA: Library Company of Philadelphia.
122
47
However, figure 29 confirms that the wages of New France commanded much
smaller quantities of sugar (brown sugar) than did wages in Philadelphia. Figure 30
shows that a similar logic applied in comparisons of purchasing power of wages in
terms of salt in Boston, New France and Philadelphia. Figure 31 concentrates on the
comparison between Philadelphia and New France. As one can see, the same is
true for salt as for sugar: New France inhabitants have a harder time acquiring those
goods than the inhabitants of the American colonies. Finally, figure 32 compares
cloth in New France and Philadelphia (no moving cloth prices exist for Boston) and
shows that the inhabitants of New France also had a harder time acquiring clothing
items. However, it should be noted that this is not the most robust of the figures
computing wages in terms of meter of cloth. First of all, the data past 1740 in New
France was interpolated for the welfare baskets on the basis of how imported French
shoes prices moved. Secondly, the only comparison of clothing in Philadelphia that
was available concerned cotton which was not imported from Europe as was the
case for clothing in France but imported from other American colonies. Regardless,
the gap is sufficiently large to claim that the inhabitants of New France had a harder
time acquiring cloth than the inhabitants of Philadelphia.
Figure 28: Liters of rum that could be purchased with one day’s wages New France
and Philadelphia.
6
5
4
Boston
3
New France
Philadelphia
2
1
0
1697 1699 1705 1711 1718 1719 1722 1728 1733 1735 1747
Figure 29: Liters of rum that could be purchased with one day’s wages New France
and Philadelphia.
48
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
Philadelphia
2.00
New France
1.50
1.00
0.50
1720
1722
1724
1726
1728
1730
1732
1734
1736
1738
1740
1742
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
1756
1758
1760
0.00
Figure 30: Kilo of sugar that could be purchased with one day’s wages New France
and Philadelphia.
6
5
4
3
New France
Philadelphia
2
1
0
Figure 31: Kilo of salt that could be purchased with one day’s wages Boston, New
France and Philadelphia.
49
140
120
100
80
Boston
New France
60
Philadelphia
40
20
0
1692 1697 1719 1720 1721 1727 1728 1729 1743 1747 1748
Figure 32: Kilo of salt that could be purchased with one day’s wages New France
and Philadelphia.
80
70
60
50
40
New France
Philadelphia
30
20
10
1758
1760
1754
1756
1748
1750
1752
1744
1746
1738
1740
1742
1734
1736
1728
1730
1732
1724
1726
1720
1722
0
Figure 33: Meters of cloth/cotton that could be purchased with one day’s wages
New France and Philadelphia.
50
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Philadelphia
0.6
New France
0.4
0.2
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
0
As for manufactured goods that could be produced domestically, the gap is similar if
not larger. As mentioned above, tobacco was grown in the American colonies –
mainly the middle and southern colonies – but it could also be grown in New France
where the census of 1734 reported an appreciable production of roughly 2 kg per
person. Still, when we compute the quantity of tobacco that could be acquired in
New France, Boston and Philadelphia with one day wages, we can see that the gap
is quite considerable. Figure 34 shows that one day’s wage in Philadelphia acquired
more than 6 kilos of tobacco while Boston daily wages commanded between 2 and 4
kilos a day. In comparison, New France never commanded more than 1.6 kilos a
day. Figure 35 shows a similar comparison over the more continuous Philadelphia
series from 1720 to 1740 (there are no continuous tobacco prices for New France
past 1740). Even the lowest point of the tobacco-wages of Philadelphia (3.4
kilos/day) is higher than the highest point of the tobacco-wages of New France (2.63
kilos/day). The results for codfish are the most damning. Here, there are abundant
datasets of prices that exist from the American colonies that can allow us to compare
with our own Quebec codfish prices.128 Moreover, the prices series are much more
continuous than in the case of the other commodities. In Boston, the quantity of cod
(measured in kg) that could be bought with a day’s work steadily increased between
1688 and 1760. Meanwhile in New France, that figure progressively declined and
reached a low plateau during the mid-18th century. This is quite an important
128
Those interested in discussions of those price series can consult the following articles: Ruth
Crandall. 1934. “Wholesale Commodity Prices in Boston during the Eighteenth Century”, Review of
Economics and Statistics, Vol.16, No.6, pp.117-128; Daniel Vickers. 1996. “The Price of Fish: A Price
Index for Cod, 1505-1892”, Acadiensis, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.92-104; Christopher Magra. 2006. The New
England Cod Fishing Industry and Maritime Dimensions of the American Revolution. Pittsburgh, PA,
PhD Thesis, Department of History, University of Pittsburgh. Note : It should be underlined that the
prices I used are also available online at the Global Price and Income History Group under the title
Massachusetts,
1630-1883
at
the
following
address
:
http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Massachusetts_1630-1883a.xls (consulted September 11th 2014). The
category of “merchantable cod” here refers to dried cod after transformation (net weight after
evisceration). To make the price series comparable, I used the conversions proposed by François
Rousseau.1983. L’Oeuvre de Chère en Nouvelle-France: Le Régime des Malades à l’Hôtel-Dieu de
Québec. Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, p.395. According to Rousseau, one poignée of
codfish (2 cods) when dried and eviscerated weighed 1.02 kg (510 g per fish). It according to his
specifications that I enacted the conversions.
51
observation given that during the late 17th century, the two colonies were very similar
in this regard as figure 36 shows. The existence of a living standards gap between
New France and New England is broadly confirmed.
Figure 34: Kilo of tobacco that could be purchased with one day’s wages Boston,
New France and Philadelphia.
12
10
8
Boston
6
New France
Philadelphia
4
2
0
1692
1697
1712
1721
1727
Figure 35: Kilos of tobacco that could be purchased with one day’s wages New
France and Philadelphia.
12
10
8
6
New France
Philadelphia
4
2
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
0
Figure 36: Kilos of codfish that could be purchased with one day’s wages New
France and Boston
52
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
New France
Boston
0.6
0.4
0.2
1688
1691
1694
1697
1700
1703
1706
1709
1712
1715
1718
1721
1724
1727
1730
1733
1736
1739
1742
1745
1748
1751
1754
1757
1760
0
Broadly speaking, it seems clear that the inhabitants of New France were very well
able to achieve a basic level of living standards. However, moving to another level
of consumption by increasing consumption of domestically produced manufactures
or imported durable and non-durable goods is very costly in New France. The
inhabitants of New France had a much harder time that their counterparts in France
to acquire goods like wine and cloth. Moreover, relative to their the settlers of the
American colonies of New England and Pennsylvania, the inhabitants of New France
seemed equally able to satisfy the basic needs of life although the inhabitants of
Pennsylvania seemed to have a pronounced edge in that regard. At the bare bones
level of consumption, there does not seem to be a clear gap between New England
and New France. However, if we consider the consumption of goods that tended to
be manufactured domestically (tobacco and codfish) or imported (salt, cloth, rum,
sugar), the wages of the inhabitants of New France had a much smaller command
over these goods than the inhabitants of New England and even more so relative to
the inhabitants of Pennsylvania.
Section 8: Conclusion
What can we conclude from this empirical paper? First and foremost, New France
did not enjoy any sustained improvements in living standards throughout the period.
This contrasts mightily with the results of Lindert and Williamson who found that New
England enjoyed a positive rate of growth from the low levels (which are similar to
those of New France) it started from in 1675.129 Lindert and Williamson also found
that living standards in the American South declined throughout the period. Given
that we find stagnation in a region that has great geographical similarities with New
England, this indicates that there are colonial origins to divergence within North
America. It also indicates that there are different forms of divergence: the middle
colonies and New France stagnate, the south declines and New England rises.
Secondly, we can also see that the inhabitants of New France were more easily able
to acquire the basic needs of life than their counterparts in France. However, moving
beyond the bare bones basket of goods was costly and narrows the perceived gap
129
Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. 2014. American Colonial Incomes, 1650-1774. Cambridge,
MA : National Bureau of Economic Research, p.41.
53
between the two regions. This indicates that results showing that, at bare bones
level, the inhabitants of North America were better off than their European
counterparts might not be capturing the full picture of divergence. It might be
overstating the gap that some like Allen, Murphy and Schneider130 and Lindert and
Williamson found. Indeed, moving from France to New France seems to have
entailed paying a penalty in terms of foregoing non-essential consumption.
Thirdly, we see other signs of divergence within North America. Although New
France and New England seem to diverge slightly at the bare bones level, there is
an existing (and probably widening) gap in terms of broader baskets which would
include manufactured and imported goods. That gap is much larger in comparison
with the inhabitants of Philadelphia. Explaining the existence and expansion of this
gap in living standards seems key to explaining why divergence occurred even within
the high living-standard group of North America.
Most importantly, the inclusion of Quebec allows us to question the validity of certain
hypothesis concerning divergence. Although this is the subject of another paper (i.e.
the subsequent essay in this dissertation), many of the existing hypotheses cannot
explain why New France exhibited signs of divergence during the early colonial era.
First of all, the similar geographical features of New England and New France seem
to preclude geographical determinism in the origins of this divergence. Secondly, the
explanation advanced by Allen and al. which states that high wages in America (due
to labor scarcity) incentivized invention and labour-saving machinery in order to
increase productivity seems hardly to apply. Labor was equally rare in New France
as it was in New England, maybe even more so given the low migration to the
French colony. Institutional explanations (which we will discuss in greater details in a
following paper) are probably a very strong candidate for the origins of divergence.
New France had a peculiar land tenure system which was inspired from the French
legal system of seigniorial tenure. In that system, the King granted estates to
seigneurs, who would then concede plots to censitaires who would pay dues and
taxes to the seigneurs in perpetuity plus a 12.5% capital tax once they sold their plot.
Moreover, the inhabitants of a seigneurie were obliged to mill their grain at the
estate’s mill and not elsewhere. Individuals who left their tenancy and resettled were
in illegality and could be brought to court. This institution is an oddity given the land
abundance of New France. Basically, land was the cheapest input and could easily
be harnessed for production, why create an institution that controls access to this
cheap input. Landlords would have had a weak bargaining power relative to the
tenants without seigniorial tenure which merely reinforced their bargaining position.
This institution suggests that the proposition of Douglass North, Barry Weingast and
William Summerhill that the definition of property rights in the Americas explain
divergence is probably the most interesting for us.131 Yet, this is probably not
sufficient given that there is another problem that complicates our situation: the small
migration flow to New France. The low levels of migration between France and New
France implies that most of the population growth the colony enjoyed resulted from
natural growth. Up to 1760, the population of New France increases very slowly –
Robert Allen, Tommy Murphy and Eric Schneider. 2012. “The Colonial Origins of the Divergence in
the Americas : A Labor Market Approach”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp.863-94.
131 Douglass North, William Summerhill and Barry Weingast. 2000. “Order, Disorder and Economic
Change: Latin America vs North America” in eds. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Hilton Root,
Governing for Prosperity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.17-58.
130
54
much more so than that of New England – and only reaches 70,000 in the early
years of British rule. Moreover, the population was very disseminated across the
territory. In 1763, when the colony was conquered by the British, the population was
concentrated along the St-Lawrence seaway. In this area, the population density
stood at 8.91 inhabitants per square mile.132 A standard Smithian view of growth can
explain why institutional features probably exacerbated an existing structural
problem. The low density and small population limited the scope for specialization,
made it harder to generate economies of scale in production and limited the
capabilities of individuals to organize commercial networks. In comparison, the
rapidly growing and large American population offered great opportunity for
specialization and trade which permitted an improvement in living standards.
Attributing a positive role to population levels and population growth is by no means
revolutionary133, but in the case of New France versus the rest of North America, it is
an interesting candidate that we will explore in greater depth in the following essay.
132
This estimate has been made possible by Jacques-Alexandre Fournier from the urbanist firm
Indicia in Montreal using the map provided in Cole Harris. 2012. Le Pays Revêche: Société, espace et
environnement au Canada avant la Confédération. Québec : Les Presses de l’Université Laval, p.112.
133 Oded Galor. 2005. “From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory” in eds. Philippe Aghion
and Steven Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol 1A. New York, NY: North Holland, pp. 171—
293.